ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Voluntary Sector

David Mowat: What assessment her Department has made of the role of the voluntary sector in dealing with the legacy of the past.

Theresa Villiers: I begin, Mr Speaker, by offering my apologies for the absence of the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan). He is recovering from an operation and looks forward to returning to the House soon.
	The voluntary sector plays an important role in supporting those whose lives have been affected by the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past. I pay tribute to organisations such as Wave and the Warrington Peace Centre, which do such valuable work.

David Mowat: The Secretary of State will be aware that nearly 20% of the victims of the troubles reside on the UK mainland, whereas funding is restricted largely to the island of Ireland. For example, the Peace Centre, based in Warrington, has no access either to EU PEACE III funding or UK funding. Are there any plans to review the criteria by which this works?

Theresa Villiers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I very much enjoyed my visit to the Warrington Peace Centre, which does a fantastic job. I have heard directly from it about its concerns regarding its inability to access the funding that supports victims in Northern Ireland. I know that is a concern for it, but it is for the Northern Ireland Executive to decide whether they open up those funds to any organisations in Great Britain and outside Northern Ireland. However, I welcome the work that the Warrington Peace Centre does for the UK Government on the Home Office’s Prevent scheme to counter radicalisation.

Gregory Campbell: The voluntary sector had an unfair burden in the past, particularly in dealing with sex abuse victims. Will the
	Secretary of State comment on information I have received about a fixed committee that existed within the republican movement in 2000, which dealt with almost 100 sex abuse victims and in which some very prominent republicans were involved, and will she join me in calling for those people to come forward and help those many innocent victims deal with the nightmare they are still dealing with 13 years on?

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Gentleman raises some very grave matters, and I would certainly encourage anyone who has been the victim of abuse to approach the police with that information, and anyone who has knowledge of such cases to do so too. It is obviously crucial that this scourge to society is eliminated and that the voluntary sector, the police and the Government give all the support possible to victims of abuse.

Margaret Ritchie: The Secretary of State rightly recognises the role of the voluntary sector in helping victims, but does she recognise that the ludicrous restrictions in the Government’s lobbying Bill will prevent these very groups from carrying out important advocacy work on behalf of victims and others because the Government say that they will not be allowed to engage with politicians in the year up to a general election? Will she ask her colleagues to reconsider this aspect of the lobbying Bill?

Theresa Villiers: I think I can provide the hon. Lady with some reassurance. The lobbying Bill will continue to permit the voluntary sector to campaign on general issues, but if a voluntary organisation seeks to campaign for particular candidates in a general election, it will be asked to account for its finances and spending and will be subject to limits. I think that that is a fair reform.

Lady Hermon: I urge the Secretary of State, in dealing with the legacy of the past, to ensure that the case of my young constituent, Lisa Dorrian, is not forgotten. She was murdered and then disappeared by those with loyalist paramilitary connections eight years ago. Her body has never been recovered, her family need closure and she certainly needs a Christian burial.

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Lady is right to raise one of the greatest tragedies of the troubles: people lost their lives, and some families still do not know what happened to their loved ones and still have no body to bury and no funeral to attend. It is a continuing tragedy, and the Government are very supportive of all efforts to try to locate them and get answers for victims, including her constituents.

National Crime Agency

Paul Goggins: What recent discussions she has had with the Justice Minister of the Northern Ireland Executive on the remit of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland.

Theresa Villiers: My most recent discussion with the Justice Minister concerning the remit of the National Crime Agency took place on 9 October. The NCA will provide
	support and expertise to partners in Northern Ireland in a number of areas. We are keen to extend its remit to cover crime falling within devolved responsibilities, if agreement can be reached on this within the Northern Ireland Executive.

Paul Goggins: Does the Secretary of State agree with my reading of yesterday’s debate in the Assembly that there is a willingness to explore a way forward on this issue, and will she therefore facilitate urgent discussions between Home Office Ministers, the Justice Minister and the political parties in Northern Ireland to ensure that the NCA, with proper accountability and in partnership with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, can get on and do its job properly?

Theresa Villiers: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that undertaking. He assesses the current situation correctly. There is a genuine willingness to reach a solution across the political parties in Northern Ireland. Further discussions with the Justice Minister and Home Office Ministers would be a good idea, and I will try to facilitate them as soon as possible.

Mark Durkan: I thank the Secretary of State for acknowledging the progress on understandings about accountability and primacy that have affected this issue, but will she also address the concerns that we have put to her directly about MI5 potentially using and abusing the future role of the NCA—as it abused the role of the Serious Organised Crime Agency—in nefarious ways and ways that have affected the performance and perception of the PSNI?

Theresa Villiers: The Home Secretary has always been clear that she will make every effort to ensure that the NCA’s role in Northern Ireland is completely consistent with the devolved settlement on policing and justice and the primacy of the Chief Constable. She has made a number of concessions along those lines to provide that assurance, and she and her colleagues at the Home Office are keen to continue the discussion on how to provide the reassurance asked for by the Social Democratic and Labour party and others in Northern Ireland.

Nigel Dodds: May I welcome the new shadow Secretary of State to his post and wish the outgoing shadow Secretary of State well in his new post? I look forward to working with the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) in the same way as I did his predecessor.
	Will the Secretary of State cut to the chase and tell us the estimated cost, in lost revenue to the Treasury and human misery, of the decision by Sinn Fein and the SDLP to block the full establishment of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland?

Theresa Villiers: The NCA’s current remit in Northern Ireland will provide useful assistance on criminal matters that fall within the responsibilities that have not been devolved, such as fuel smuggling, international smuggling of drugs and firearms. The NCA will also be able to provide advice and assistance on matters within the devolved sphere, such as child protection. However, it is important for Northern Ireland’s political parties to look carefully at this issue. I believe that extending the NCA’s remit to devolved matters would considerably
	assist the fight against serious crime in Northern Ireland, and I hope that the current discussions result in an agreement on these matters.

Nigel Dodds: Does the Secretary of State agree with the assessment of the Northern Ireland Justice Minister—who has been quite unequivocal in his denunciation of the current situation—in which he said:
	“We are effectively asking some law enforcement agencies to operate with one arm tied behind their backs”?
	This is an outrageous situation that can be of benefit only to drug smugglers, human traffickers, cyber-criminals, fuel launderers and all the rest. Apart from convening talks, can the Secretary of State tell us what the Government will do to ensure that the citizens and taxpayers of Northern Ireland are not subject to this criminal empire building?

Theresa Villiers: A huge amount of work has been done to provide the reassurance that Northern Ireland political parties have asked for on consistency with the police and justice settlement. Productive work has also been done between the Home Office and the Justice Minister on transitional arrangements—for example, on the cases that SOCA had taken on that can be continued by the NCA within the provisions for the current purposes. We will continue to work hard to make the case for the NCA’s full operation in Northern Ireland as a potent fighting force to bring to justice those responsible for organised crime and other serious criminal activities.

Peter Hain: I strongly support the Secretary of State’s efforts to persuade all those involved, including in her discussions with the parties in Northern Ireland, to ensure that the remit of the National Crime Agency is extended. Whatever the circumstances surrounding the hesitancy about that from Belfast so far, everybody will want to see every possible effort made to tackle these issues—particularly after two executions attributed to dissident republicans last week and 12 security threats recently—and she ought to make sure that happens.

Theresa Villiers: I agree and will continue to do everything possible to make the case for the extension of the NCA’s activities in Northern Ireland. It is also worth bearing it in mind that there were some ways in which the legislation on the NCA would have strengthened accountability in Northern Ireland, because it would have extended the remit of the police ombudsman to proceeds of crime matters, which are not currently covered by the policing and justice settlement. In many ways, the legislation, which does not currently have agreement in Northern Ireland, would have enabled us to strengthen accountability on police activities in Northern Ireland.

David Hanson: The Secretary of State cannot be happy with the current situation relating to asset recovery, which affects England, Scotland and Wales as much as it affects Northern Ireland. The situation has been known about for at least nine months and it has been raised in the Committee, but it has still not been resolved. Will she take personal ownership of convening a meeting with the political parties—not just with the Justice Minister—to get the matter resolved?

Theresa Villiers: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the proceeds of crime is one of the most serious issues resulting from the gap left by the failure so far to agree a legislative consent motion. I am keen to convene as many meetings as possible to get the matter resolved, but the reality is that the devolution settlement gives the Executive a choice and, unless there is consensus across the political parties in Northern Ireland, that choice will be to reject the extension of the NCA’s remit. I will continue to make the case for that extension because I think that the NCA will be an asset to fighting crime in Northern Ireland.

Public Order

Lorraine Fullbrook: What discussions she has had with the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland about recent disturbances in Northern Ireland.

Theresa Villiers: I meet the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Justice Minister on a regular basis. Discussions at those meetings cover a wide range of security-related matters, including the outbreaks of public disorder that occurred in Northern Ireland during the summer.

Lorraine Fullbrook: I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning the street violence that we saw in Belfast over the summer. Does the Secretary of State agree that such disgraceful behaviour damages the economy of Northern Ireland, and that it is essential that the determinations of the Parades Commission should be obeyed and the rule of law respected?

Theresa Villiers: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The scenes that we witnessed in Belfast over the summer were disgraceful. It is utterly unacceptable for the police to be attacked as they were during the several days of sustained rioting following the 12 July parades, and such scenes do significant damage to the Northern Ireland economy because they deter inward investment.

Ivan Lewis: I should like to begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) for his excellent work as shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I should also like to thank the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) for his kind remarks about my appointment. I say to the Secretary of State that we will continue to work in a bipartisan way whenever possible, and that peace and stability for the people of Northern Ireland must always take precedence over any party political differences. In the context of the recent disturbances and the need for peace and stability, the Haass talks are crucial. Will she tell the House how many times she has met Ambassador Haass, and when their most recent meeting was?

Theresa Villiers: I have met Ambassador Haass twice and had a number of telephone conversations with him as well. My officials have met Dr Haass and his team on a number of occasions. I have also had a series of meetings with the political parties, business representatives and members of civil society to determine what they want from the Haass process. This Government are entirely engaged in the process because, like the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis), I believe it represents
	an important way forward in resolving the continuing tensions. I thank him for his reiteration of the bipartisan approach taken by his predecessor, and I welcome him to his new post.

Ivan Lewis: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. It is incredibly important that she and her counterparts in the Irish Government—as well as the five Executive parties—remain totally engaged in every stage of the Haass process. Will she give the House an assurance that that is going to happen?

Theresa Villiers: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, and he will be delighted to hear that Dr Haass is expected to visit No. 10 tomorrow. I am also staying in close touch with Eamon Gilmore on these matters, because working together with the Irish Government and across the community in Northern Ireland is an important way of building consensus to resolve the problems that Dr Haass is looking at.

Patrick Mercer: I am sure that the House will agree that we can only admire the way in which the Police Service of Northern Ireland handled the crowd disturbances during the summer, but is the Secretary of State convinced that the PSNI would have the resources to deal adequately with any armed disturbances that might occur, as they could do at any moment?

Theresa Villiers: Yes, I believe the PSNI does have the means and resources to deal with street violence in Northern Ireland. We keep these matters under constant review, but we supplemented PSNI funding by £200 million in the last spending review and will supplement it by £31 million in the next spending review. The provision of expensive mutual aid from GB police forces proved to be extremely successful during this summer’s parading season.

William McCrea: During discussions with the Chief Constable on matters relating to civil disturbance and terrorist attack, was the demand for additional resources included to enable the Chief Constable to employ officers on the ground to deal with other criminal activity, such as the despicable attack on an 81-year-old man in my constituency at the weekend in which he was tied up, beaten and terrorised in his own home?

Theresa Villiers: I am very concerned to hear about what happened to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent and I hope he will pass on my sympathies to him. Yes, I am afraid that one consequence of street disorder and extensive demonstrations night after night is that police resources get tied up with those matters, which makes it more difficult to fight crime across Northern Ireland. That is why I urge those who are contemplating street violence not to proceed with it. That is not the way to further their cause and they are likely to end up with a prison sentence if they continue on that course.

Philip Hollobone: Is it not the case that more police officers would have been injured and that it would have taken longer to quell the disorder were it not for the effective deployment of water cannon? Will my right hon. Friend use her best endeavours to ensure that the lessons learned are understood by police forces here on the mainland?

Theresa Villiers: These are clearly operational matters for the PSNI, but I agree that its job would have been made more difficult if it had not been able to access water cannon. I am sure that the Home Secretary and her colleagues will be interested to learn from the experience of using this equipment.

Naomi Long: The Secretary of State will be aware that the security situation in Northern Ireland has deteriorated not just in respect of civil disorder, but in respect of an increase in paramilitary activity both from dissident and republicans and from loyalists. Will the right hon. Lady ensure that everything she can do to ensure that those who are responsible for those attacks, murders and attempted murders, including in my own constituency, are brought to justice and that the police have the resources to deal with them?

Theresa Villiers: The Government and I are fully supportive of all the efforts being made by the PSNI and its partners to bring to justice those responsible for dissident republican violence, those responsible for criminality and those responsible for the disgraceful punishment shootings that have taken place. I am particularly concerned about the situation in the hon. Lady’s constituency and the continuing protests and intimidation to which she and her staff are being subjected. The threats that she, along with other elected representatives in Northern Ireland, has received over recent months are utterly disgraceful, and I urge anyone with knowledge about who is responsible for this kind of criminal behaviour to bring it to the attention of the PSNI as soon as possible.

Economic Policy

Andrea Leadsom: What steps the Government are taking to strengthen the Northern Ireland economy.

Karl Turner: What her policy is on the Northern Ireland economy; and if she will make a statement.

Theresa Villiers: The Government are working closely with the Executive to promote growth and rebalance the Northern Ireland economy. Last week, we published an update on progress made on the economic package signed in June, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister attended a very successful investment conference at Titanic Belfast.

Andrea Leadsom: Does my right hon. Friend agree that access to finance is critical for small businesses in Northern Ireland, and does she welcome as I do the Government’s decision to bring forward an independent payments regulator to promote more competition in banking and better access to finance?

Theresa Villiers: I am happy to give that assurance. I, too, welcome the setting up of an independent payments regulator, and I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend and the Treasury Select Committee in bringing that about. It is crucial to the success of banking in Northern Ireland that we encourage new entrants into that market. This regulator will help to achieve that. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. These exchanges are of very great importance to people in Northern Ireland and beyond, and I feel strongly that these questions and the Secretary of State’s answers must be heard.

Karl Turner: With almost half of the population of Northern Ireland in fuel poverty and 90,000 pensioners suffering because of the granny tax, does the Secretary of State agree that Northern Ireland is in the clutch of a cost-of-living crisis?

Theresa Villiers: We are concerned on both sides of the House about cost-of-living pressures. That is why the Government have taken steps to cut income tax for more than 600,000 people in Northern Ireland, have taken 75,000 people there out of income tax altogether, have halved the income tax bills of those on the minimum wage and are freezing fuel duty. Above all, our deficit reduction strategy is keeping mortgage rates low, which is crucial for the cost of living in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.

Laurence Robertson: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Republic of Ireland has announced the scrapping of its equivalent of air passenger duty. What assessment has the Secretary of State made on the impact that could have on airports in Northern Ireland? Will she reconsider the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s proposals that attention should be given to removing the tax on flights to and from Northern Ireland?

Theresa Villiers: I know that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has a strong view on air passenger duty. I understand the concerns about competitiveness and the recent announcements by the Irish Government. The Government have not had a request from the Northern Ireland Executive to devolve short-haul APD. We would consider such a request seriously, but it would be an expensive change to make.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Secretary of State will join me in welcoming the visit to the House today by the Northern Ireland Assembly and Business Trust, an effective organisation that brings political and business leaders together. How does it strengthen the Northern Ireland economy to centralise jobs in the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea, resulting in the loss of hundreds of jobs and millions of pounds from our local economy?

Theresa Villiers: The issue is a difficult one. The Government must look carefully at proposed efficiency measures. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) is looking with care at the proposal, and I have had a lengthy conversation with him, as I did with his predecessor. He is very much aware of the issues, and I have made it plain that it is important to consider the onward economic impacts in Coleraine of the decision that he will be making in due course.

Stephen Lloyd: Now that Northern Ireland has the second highest per capita inward investment of any region in the UK after London, what can the Minister do to ensure that that investment is spread across the whole of Northern Ireland and not concentrated in Greater Belfast?

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The investment conference that the Prime Minister attended last week was incredibly successful. There was
	huge interest from current investors in expanding, and from new investors in setting up business, in Northern Ireland, which is a great place to do business. Several investors at the Belfast conference were interested in the whole of Northern Ireland, and we will do our best to ensure that the benefits are spread throughout Northern Ireland, as we did in bringing the G8 to County Fermanagh.

Stephen Pound: May I say to the Secretary of State, as one survivor to another, that I agree with her analysis of last week’s investment conference, which provided an excellent opportunity to showcase Northern Ireland’s potential? But all is not sunny optimism in the land. What steps does she plan to take to support the small businesses in Northern Ireland that are struggling to get credit?

Theresa Villiers: We have introduced an allowance for employer’s national insurance, which will make it cheaper to employ people and create jobs; we are keeping interest rates low through our deficit reduction programme; we are freezing fuel duty; and we are cutting corporation tax to boost business. We are determined to make Northern Ireland a fabulous place to do business in, and to help small businesses.

Alasdair McDonnell: I welcome our new shadow Secretary of State and pay tribute to his predecessor for the great work he did. Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that an economic boost would do a lot to defuse the current community tension? Will she commit herself to helping us to achieve some of the measures, such as the maintenance of low VAT and others that have been mentioned, announced in yesterday’s Irish budget? That would be a major achievement.

Theresa Villiers: I am afraid that EU rules mean that we cannot have a different level of VAT in one part of the country, but we will certainly look at the measures introduced by the Irish to see what lessons can be learned. We are also determined to help rebalance and boost the Northern Ireland economy, which is why we signed the economic pact in June. Last week I announced an update, which demonstrated real progress on start-up loans, research and development, support for Bombardier, and a ministerial taskforce on banking to ensure that businesses get the access to finance they need.

Northern Ireland Grand Committee

Neil Carmichael: What assessment she has made of the recent meeting of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.

Theresa Villiers: The Northern Ireland Grand Committee is a valuable forum for the debating of Northern Ireland issues. The recent meeting in Belfast on 9 September provided an opportunity to reaffirm the importance that the House of Commons ascribes to Northern Ireland matters.

Neil Carmichael: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government were absolutely right to extend the start-up loan scheme to Northern Ireland, and that the scheme will provide a huge number of opportunities for young entrepreneurs by giving them access to £117 million?

Theresa Villiers: The start-up loan scheme has been one of the most successful of the schemes that the Government have introduced to support businesses and help them to gain access to finance. It was extended to Northern Ireland within weeks of the signing, in Downing street, of the commitment to do so. I am sure that it is providing great benefit for young entrepreneurs, and is helping us with our efforts to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy.

David Simpson: As the Secretary of State will know, at the Grand Committee meeting I asked how the Government could make it easier for young people to gain access to apprenticeships and training centres without needing sponsorship from various companies. She agreed to refer my question to the Minister. Has there been any progress since then?

Theresa Villiers: I have no further developments to report, but these matters are of course very important. I am sure that enhancing skills in Northern Ireland is a high priority for the Northern Ireland Executive, as it is, of course, for the United Kingdom Government in areas that are not devolved.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Paul Blomfield: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 October.

David Cameron: I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in congratulating the England football team on their excellent win last night, which has enabled them to qualify for next year’s World cup competition. I send my commiserations to the other home nation teams, including Scotland, who delivered an impressive win over Croatia last night, but I am sure that everyone in the United Kingdom will now swing behind the English team—you can always dream and hope, Mr. Speaker.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Paul Blomfield: May I associate myself with what the Prime Minister said about the English football team? I only hope that Sheffield United will follow their lead.
	We will all have heard from constituents who, while struggling to make ends meet, have taken out payday loans and then found themselves trapped in spiralling debt owing to excessive charges and escalating interest. Yesterday all the major national consumer and debt advice organisations came together in Parliament to launch a charter calling for the tough regulation of payday lenders, which has been backed by Members representing every party in the House. Will the Prime Minister add his support to it?

David Cameron: Let me first commend the hon. Gentleman for the work that he does in relation to payday loans and the need for tough regulation. I think it absolutely right for us to look at the issue, and to ensure that we get things right.
	Earlier this month, the Government published two reports which showed that the problems in the payday market persist, and that consumers continue to suffer. As a result, the Financial Conduct Authority has made a series of proposals, all of them worth while. They include proposals to use powers to ban loans and advertisements of which it does not approve, to ensure that lenders cannot roll over loans more than twice, and to limit the number of attempts that a payday lender can make to take money out of accounts.
	We are still considering the issue of a cap, and I do not think we should rule it out, although we must bear in mind what has been established in other countries, and by our own research, about whether a cap would prove effective. It is absolutely right for us to regulate this area properly.

Liam Fox: May we have a full and transparent assessment of whether The Guardian’s involvement in the Snowden affair has damaged Britain’s national security? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is bizarre that from some the hacking of a celebrity phone demands a prosecution, whereas leaving the British people and their security personnel more vulnerable is seen as opening a debate?

David Cameron: I commend my right hon. Friend for raising the issue. I think the plain fact is that what has happened has damaged national security, and in many ways The Guardian itself admitted that when, having been asked politely by my national security adviser and Cabinet Secretary to destroy the files that it had, it went ahead and destroyed those files. It knows that what it is dealing with is dangerous for national security. I think that it is up to Select Committees in the House to examine the issue if they wish to do so, and to make further recommendations.

Edward Miliband: I join the Prime Minister in sending warmest congratulations to the England team on its victory last night and on getting to the World cup finals next summer, and I add my commiserations to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Today’s economic figures show a welcome fall in unemployment. They also show that prices have risen faster than wages, and that is 39 out of 40 months that living standards have fallen since he became Prime Minister. Will he confirm what everybody knows: that there is a cost of living crisis in this country?

David Cameron: First of all, let me welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s welcome for the unemployment figures. Not everyone in the House will have been able to study them, but it is good news. The number in work is up 155,000, unemployment is down 18,000, women’s unemployment is down, youth unemployment is down, long-term unemployment is down and vacancies are up, and crucially the fall in the claimant count is 41,000 this month alone. That is the fastest fall in the number of people claiming unemployment benefit since February 1997. So these are welcome figures. Of course we all want to see living standards improve, and last year disposable income increased, but the way to deliver on living standards is to grow the economy, keep producing the jobs and cut people’s taxes.

Edward Miliband: There are almost 1 million young people still out of work and record numbers of people working part-time who cannot find full-time work. That is no cause for complacency from this Government, and I think the British people will be very surprised to hear the Prime Minister telling them that their living standards are rising when they know the truth: under him, living standards are falling month upon month upon month. There is a cost of living crisis, and one of the reasons is rising energy bills, which one leading charity reports today is one of the things driving people to food banks. In the light of that, does the Prime Minister think that the energy company SSE’s decision to raise its customers’ energy bills by 8.2% is justified?

David Cameron: Let me come back to the right hon. Gentleman on the youth unemployment figures which he mentions, because the youth claimant count—the number of young people claiming unemployment benefit—is down 79,000 since the election. There is absolutely no complacency—we need more young people in work, we need more jobs—but one of the remarkable things about today’s figures is that they show for the first time that there are 1 million more people in work than there were when this Government came into office.
	Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of something he predicted. In October 2010 he said this—[Interruption.] I think people will want to listen to this. He said the Government clearly
	“have a programme which will lead to the disappearance of a million…jobs.”
	That was his prediction. He was 100% wrong, and he should apologise to this House of Commons. Of course we all want to see energy prices come down. That is why we are putting people on the lowest tariff, but the one thing that will not work is a price con, and that is what he is recommending.

Edward Miliband: The person who should be apologising is this Prime Minister, for the cost of living crisis facing millions of families. Let us talk about SSE. It says on its website—and I quote—that it has just one strategic priority and it calls it its “dividend obsession”: it is not to get bills down; it is not to be on the side of the consumer. So it is make-up-your-mind time for the Prime Minister. Whose side is he on: the energy companies’ or the consumers’?

David Cameron: We are on the side of hard-working families, which is why we have cut income tax for 25 million people, why we have frozen the council tax, why we have lifted 2 million people out of tax, and let me make this simple point about living standards: if we want to help with living standards, the best way to do that is to cut people’s taxes. Now, we can only cut taxes if we cut spending. The right hon. Gentleman has opposed every single spending cut that we have proposed; even now he still wants to spend more money. That is the truth: more spending, more borrowing, more debt. It is the same old Labour.

Edward Miliband: Is it not striking that the one thing the Prime Minister does not want to talk about is energy prices? He cannot talk about that because he has no answer. Let us have an answer on the energy price freeze. Can he confirm that in opposing the freeze he
	has on his side the big six energy companies, and in supporting a freeze we have on our side consumer bodies such as Which? and small energy producers such as Co-op Energy and the vast majority of the British people?

David Cameron: If an energy price freeze was such a great idea, why did the right hon. Gentleman not introduce it when he stood at this Dispatch Box as Energy Secretary? The fact is that it is not a price freeze; it is a price con. He is not in control of worldwide gas prices, which is why he had to admit the next day that he could not keep his promise—that is the truth. The reason why he does not want to talk about the economy is because he has not got a credible economic policy. He cannot explain why the deficit is falling, the economy is growing and unemployment is coming down. I have to say to him that given that his problem is having no credible economic policy, he does not help himself by having a totally incredible energy policy.

Edward Miliband: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman might get to the record of the last Government, because his Government have found a new tactic; they have been floundering all over the place and they blame the last Government and green levies. Let us talk about green levies, because who said, “Vote blue, go green”? I think it was this Prime Minister. Who said, as Leader of the Opposition:
	“I think green taxes as a whole need to go up”?
	It was him. He has been talking about my record as Energy Secretary, so I looked back at the record on the Energy Bill of 2010. Did he oppose that Bill? No, he supported it. You could say, Mr Speaker, that it was two parties working together in the national interest. Does he not feel faintly embarrassed that in five short years he has gone from hug a husky to gas a badger?

David Cameron: Oh dear! The only embarrassing thing is this tortured performance.
	The right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about the record of the last Labour Government. Let me remind him, on the cost of living, that they doubled the council tax; they doubled the gas bills; they put up electricity bills by half; they put up petrol tax 12 times; they increased the basic state pension by a measly 75p; and then when it came to the low paid, they got rid of the 10p income tax band altogether. Labour has absolutely no economic policy, and that is why the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), said on 9 September:
	“I’m waiting to hear what we’ve got to say on the economy”.
	We have all been waiting, but I think we should give up waiting because they are a hopeless Opposition.

Edward Miliband: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what happened, because he talks about the last Labour Government: living standards went up by £3,700 over the 13 years of the last Labour Government; living standards are down by £1,500 under him. This is the reality of Britain under this Prime Minister: food bank use on the rise; energy bills soaring; even if you are in work, you are worse off; and a Prime Minister in total denial about the cost of living crisis facing millions of families.

David Cameron: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to debate the last Labour Government, I say, “Bring it on.” They crashed the economy; they bust the banks; they doubled the national debt; and they bankrupted this country. I have to say to him that today we can see that 1 million more people are in work in our country, and that is 1 million reasons to stick to the economic plan that we have, it is 1 million reasons to keep on getting the deficit down, delivering on education and delivering on welfare, and it is 1 million reasons to say, “More borrowing, more spending, more debt—that is the same old Labour.” Never again.

Stephen Gilbert: Last night, Mr Speaker, you presented an Attitude magazine award to the nieces of Alan Turing, the gay world war two code-breaker who helped this country to win world war two. The Government indicated in July that they would move to give a pardon to Mr Turing for his conviction for gross indecency which led him to take his own life. Can my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister tell us when that pardon will be granted?

David Cameron: Let me pay tribute to what Alan Turing and all the people who worked at Bletchley Park did for our country—it was absolutely remarkable and it was crucial in winning the second world war. Clearly what happened to him was completely wrong and now, looking back, everyone can see that—everybody knows that. I am very happy to look at the specific issue of the pardon and respond to the hon. Gentleman, but above all what we should do is praise Alan Turing and the brave people who worked for him.

Mark Durkan: Today is world food day. The Prime Minister embraced the IF campaign, including the need to cut pseudo-green biofuel mandates, which in effect hijack food productivity for the world’s poor for fuel consumption by the rich. Today the EU presidency is proposing a 7% cap, as opposed to the 5% cap advocated by the European Commission. That difference could feed 68 million people a year. What efforts is the Prime Minister making actively to avert EU Governments compromising the fight against world hunger?

David Cameron: First, let me pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the campaign that he has waged on this issue. We are absolutely clear that the production of biofuels should not undermine food security, and on some occasions in some countries it clearly does. A 5% cap on biofuels made from crops was one of the key asks of the IF campaign. I support the IF campaign and pay tribute to what it did. That is exactly what we are pushing for in current EU negotiations, and I hope we will be successful.

Alistair Burt: The use of contaminated blood products by the NHS in the 1970s and 1980s exposed 5,000 people to hepatitis C and some 1,2000 included in that number to HIV as well. Of those 1,200, only just over 300 are still alive. There has never been an apology or a public inquiry. Will my right hon. Friend, who has an outstanding record in seeking to close historic wrongs, meet me and one of my affected constituents, look again at the possibility of public acknowledgement of perhaps this
	last historic health scandal, and ensure that those who survive now are treated equally and fairly by a state that wronged them in the first place?

David Cameron: I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this issue in the way that he has. I, too, have constituents who have been affected by this appalling thing that happened in our country. In January 2011 we announced a package of measures to provide additional support for those affected, not least because there has been a change in the potential outcomes for people with HIV compared with those with hep C. I am very happy to meet my right hon. Friend, consider all the issues that he raises and see whether there is more we can do to bring this very sad chapter to a close.

Dennis Skinner: The Prime Minister will know of the many injustices that have been meted out by Atos in the past few years. They were mentioned again on Monday at Department for Work and Pensions questions. The latest victim was a farmer and a butcher in Bolsover who went to Atos in December 2012 and was stripped of his benefit. For 11 months he waited for an appeal and then his aggressive cancer took his sight, took his hearing, and then last Friday took his life. Is it not time that we put an end to this system whereby people who are really suffering should not be allowed an appeal, having to live on £70 a week, for him and his widow? There are two things the Prime Minister should do: first, with immediate effect, make an ex gratia payment to his widow to cover the suffering, the pain and the loss of income, and secondly, abolish this cruel, heartless monster called Atos—get rid of it. It is not fit for purpose.

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman rightly raises what is clearly a desperately sad case and I am very happy to look at the specifics of it. Everyone who has constituency surgeries and talks to constituents knows that we have to improve the quality of decision making about this issue, but where I take issue with him is that I think it is important that we carry out proper assessments of whether people qualify for benefits or do not qualify for benefits. [Interruption.] That is why, before Members on the Opposition Benches shout about this, they started to look at work capability—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The question was heard, and heard, I think, with great courtesy, and the answer must be heard.

David Cameron: That is why the previous Government did look at the issue of work capability assessments and making sure that we have a proper way of judging who should be receiving benefits and who should not. As I say, we can always improve the system. There are appeals in the system, but I am very happy to look at the individual case.

Anne Main: The Arctic 30 include six British citizens, including Alexandra Harris, a friend of my daughter. I am really concerned that their ecological protest about Sakhalin Island and the grey whales is being misinterpreted as piracy because nobody wants the scrutiny of the environmental work they are doing. Will something be done?

David Cameron: I share my hon. Friend’s concern. One of the people involved is a constituent of mine. We need to follow this case extremely closely, and that is exactly what the Foreign Office is doing. A Foreign Office Minister had a meeting, which I am sure my hon. Friend attended, and we are daily seeking updates from the Russian Government about how those people are being treated.

Clive Efford: Last week, in answer to a question on his marriage tax policy, the Prime Minister said that
	“all married couples paying basic rate tax will benefit from this move.”—[Official Report, 9 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 151.]
	That was not correct, was it? Will he confirm that?

David Cameron: What I said was that the married couples tax allowance tax is available to all couples who are on basic rate tax. Anyone who has unused tax allowance is able to transfer it between the husband or the wife. It comes back to a very simple principle: we want to back marriage in the tax system. We do not want to do so only in the inheritance tax system, as the Labour party did; we want to back marriage for less well-off couples. If the shadow Chancellor wants to raise another point of order, I am very happy to stick around and hear it out.

Therese Coffey: I had originally intended to raise the A14 with my right hon. Friend, but a really important announcement has been made today by the Supreme Court. It has unanimously turned down the appeal on prisoners’ voting rights and, importantly, reasserted that it is the role of this Parliament to make the decision, rather than others. Will he ensure that we will not be voting for prisoners’ voting rights in this Parliament?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for forsaking the A14 to raise this very important issue. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on this excellent result. He fought this case himself in front of the Supreme Court and made a compelling and forceful argument. This is a victory for common sense. My views on the issue are well known: I do not believe that prisoners should have the vote, and I believe that that is a matter for this House of Commons. The Supreme Court has today stood up for common sense and democracy and made it clear that this issue has nothing to do with the European Union, and I think that we can all rejoice at the result.

Meg Hillier: The number of people helped by food banks in 2012-13 was triple what it was the previous year. Is the Prime Minister proud of that achievement?

David Cameron: Food bank usage went up 10 times under the previous Labour Government. Of course, I want all families being helped with their living standards. That is why we should recognise that we are getting more people into work, we are growing our economy, we are keeping interest rates down and, crucially, we are cutting taxes—four things that are vital to living standards and four things we would never get from a Labour Government.

Lorely Burt: In September Solihull’s ambulance service moved to a make ready system, and today there are no two-man ambulances based in the borough. Several of my constituents have already been left for totally unacceptably long periods waiting for an ambulance to take them to hospital. Talking to ambulance chiefs is like a dialogue of the deaf, so will the Prime Minister agree to meet me to see what can be done before a constituent dies waiting for an ambulance to arrive?

David Cameron: I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s concern about the importance of ambulance response times. I think that we then have to task the NHS with how best to it meet those targets, because what matters most of all is swift attendance for people who need it. I am very happy to arrange a meeting with her and Health Ministers to look at this. I know that the West Midlands ambulance service is looking at ways of improving its service, and clearly she will encourage it to do just that.

Keith Vaz: The Prime Minister will know that yesterday the Independent Police Complaints Commission published a damning report on an event involving the former Government Chief Whip. The report goes to the heart of the integrity and ethics of the police. Does he agree with the Home Secretary, who said in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee yesterday that it would be right for the relevant chief constables to apologise to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and wrong if the relevant officers did not face disciplinary proceedings?

David Cameron: I agree 100% with what the Home Secretary said yesterday. We should be clear about what we are discussing here. The whole case of what happened outside No. 10 Downing street is with the Crown Prosecution Service and we have to leave it on one side until it makes its decision. What is being discussed here is the fact that my right hon. Friend the former Chief Whip had a meeting with Police Federation officers in his constituency where he gave a full account of what had happened. They left that meeting and claimed that he had given them no account at all. Fortunately this meeting was recorded and so he has been able to prove that what he said was true and what the police officers said was untrue. That is why the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) is absolutely right: my right hon. Friend is owed an apology. The conduct of these officers was not acceptable. These things should be properly investigated, as the Home Secretary has said. Crucially, it is absolutely right for the right hon. Gentleman’s Committee to discuss this with the chief constables concerned and try to get to the bottom of why better redress has not been given.

Dominic Raab: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on taking 2 million people out of income tax but note the 1.3 million earning salaries of about £40,000 who have been sucked into the higher rate? As he pursues the Tory mission to take the low-paid out of tax, may I urge him to deliver it by cutting Government spending so that we can also ease the squeeze on the middle classes?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point. We have taken 2.7 million people out of income tax altogether because we have lifted the first £10,000 of what you can earn before you start paying taxes. This means also that someone on the minimum wage working full-time—the Leader of the Opposition asked about the working poor—has seen their tax bill come down by something like two thirds. Yes, I want to see taxes cut for all, but the only way we can do that is to continue to get the deficit down, to bear down on public spending, and not listen to Labour Members, who even today are making massive commitments to more welfare spending and more public spending, which would mean higher taxes, higher borrowing, and more of the same old Labour.

Virendra Sharma: Does the Prime Minister consider it a source of shame that on his watch the Red Cross has announced that it will be distributing food to British families for the first time in 70 years?

David Cameron: What the Red Cross is choosing to do, and it is its choice, is to work with FareShare, which is an excellent charity that makes sure that supermarkets do not waste food but make that food available to people who need it. I think that is thoroughly worth while. But what we need to see—I repeat it again—is a rise in living standards which we will get if we keep growing the economy, keep getting more jobs, keep cutting people’s taxes, and keep interest rates and mortgage rates low. Those are the four things this Government are delivering—four things that we never would have delivered if we had listened to a word from Labour Front Benchers.

Simon Kirby: Yesterday I presented a petition to the Department of Health calling for a £420 million hospital redevelopment in Brighton, Kemptown. Does the Prime Minister agree that this money would make a real difference to patients right across Sussex and to the hard-working staff at my local hospital?

David Cameron: I understand that the business case for the £420 million redevelopment of the regional centre for teaching, trauma and tertiary care at Royal Sussex County hospital in Brighton is currently being considered. Let me make the point that obviously we can only consider it because this Government decided not to cut the NHS but to put extra resources into it. I am sure that when it is considered an announcement will be made.

Stephen Hepburn: Tax cuts for millionaires, tax cuts for the wealthiest companies in this country and a bonus bonanza in the City, while millions are denied the right to work and people who are hard working in work have had their pay cut by £1,500: when are this Government, made up of privileged, privately educated millionaire Ministers, going to do something and get in the real world instead of being the political front of the hedge funds and the bankers in the City?

David Cameron: Well, we all know who did the most for the hedge funds and the bankers—it was the people who allowed the banks to go bust in the first place. It is this Government who are cutting taxes for
	working people, taking 2.7 million people out of tax, compared with the disgrace of the Government the hon. Gentleman was in, who scrapped the 10p income tax rate.

Glyn Davies: We all appreciate that government requires hard choices about priorities. Does the Prime Minister agree that a generous basic state pension based on a triple lock should have greater priority than more generous benefit payments?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I am proud of the fact that, last year under this Government, the basic state pension went up by £5.30 a week. We have the inflation figures for September, so we can say that, because of our triple lock, the basic state pension will go up by the rate of inflation—2.7%—next year. Of course, the Labour party’s commitment to an earnings increase in the basic state pension would not see anything like that, and yet at the same time it is choosing to uprate welfare by 2.7% when we think it should go up by 1%. We have the priorities to stand up for people who have worked hard, done the right thing and saved during their lives and who deserve dignity in retirement. Unlike the Labour party, we will never let our pensioners down.

Ann McKechin: This week the Office for National Statistics reported that house price inflation in London was running at 8.7%. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is inevitable that his mortgage guarantee scheme will simply feed this property price bubble at the expense of individual, low-cost home buyers?

David Cameron: I do not accept that for a moment. It is interesting that Labour has now come out against the Help to Buy scheme. Whereas we want to help people get on the housing ladder and own a place of their own, the Labour party is, as ever, standing against those people. If the hon. Lady looks at house price increases outside London and the south-east, she will see an increase of 0.8%. Mortgage activity is still way below what it was before the recession struck. We want to help people get on the housing ladder and achieve their dream of home ownership. Clearly, the Labour party does not care for them.

Nick de Bois: The Prime Minister will know that in my constituency some businesses are paying almost as much in business rates as they are in rent. What steps will he take to persuade local councils to use the powers this Government have given them to reduce those rates and make the right choices to support hard-pressed retailers?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a real champion on this issue for small business.
	Obviously, the first thing we need to do is get passed through the House of Commons the Bill that will cut the national insurance bill of every business in the country, helping Britain’s small businesses in particular. It will mean that single traders will be able to take on three people earning the minimum wage without paying any national insurance. That is the most important thing we can do. We should continue to look at the business rate system and encourage councils to make sure that they do everything they can to apply the discounts where they are available and to continue to work on this issue.

Gareth Thomas: Under this Government, wages in real terms have fallen in every region of the UK. Given that those in Harrow and across the rest of London are, on average, £2,200 worse off each year, when will the Prime Minister take personal responsibility for this?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman has to look at disposable income as well as wages. Because this Government have cut people’s taxes and because we are allowing people to keep £10,000 of what they earn before they pay taxes, disposable income went up last year and is rising as we speak. This is important for the Labour party, because if it goes on attacking spending cuts and asking for more and more spending, everyone will know that with Labour you get—repeat after me—more borrowing, more spending and more taxes. It is the same old Labour.

Robert Halfon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment has fallen in Harlow and jobseekers are encouraged by lower tax for lower earners? Will my right hon. Friend go one step further and look in the long term at raising the threshold at which low earners pay national insurance?

David Cameron: I am very happy to look at what my hon. Friend says. He is a real champion of the low-paid and people who want to work hard and improve their circumstances. Clearly, taking people out of tax is hugely helpful. We should always look at national insurance. The priority there is to help small businesses take people on. It is worth recognising in the figures announced today that there are 1 million extra people in work and that three quarters of those jobs are full-time jobs, not part-time jobs. What I think we can see is that the country is getting stronger, the economy is improving and more people are getting into work. We need to encourage that, rather than set it back.

Mr Speaker: I know that the substantial throng of colleagues who are leaving the Chamber will do so as quickly and quietly as possible. An expectant House can now hear Mr David Morris.

Gibraltar (Maritime Protection)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

David Morris: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision to protect the seas around Gibraltar; and for connected purposes.
	I thank colleagues from both sides of the House who have agreed to sponsor the Bill. I received offers from many more Members than the 11 I was allowed to use. I am sure that the people of Gibraltar will take great pride in the amount of support that there is in this House for their interests. Many right hon. and hon. Members have great affection for the people of Gibraltar. That is vital at a time when Gibraltar needs the support of the British Government.
	The Bill would define the territorial waters of Gibraltar in primary legislation as 3 nautical miles from the coast of Gibraltar. I do not wish to anger Spain by introducing this Bill. Spain is a key ally, friend and neighbour of the UK. I therefore believe that we should be polite, clear and firm in our approach to this sensitive issue. I believe that cementing in our statute book a definition of the Gibraltan territorial waters would be the most agreeable way forward.
	I decided to introduce the Bill after visiting Gibraltar and seeing at first hand the frustration of its people that their waters are not being protected. In the summer, various news reports showed scores of people waiting at the border to enter Spain. That stemmed from an argument that the Spanish were having with Gibraltar over their territorial waters. In July, Gibraltar dropped 70 concrete boulders into the waters around its coast to create an artificial reef. The purpose of the reef was to protect marine life in the area and to ensure that fish stocks improved. The Spanish press were strongly against the reef and claimed that the boulders were stopping Spanish fishermen from being able to fish, as their nets were being destroyed. In fact, only one Spanish fisherman was affected by the reef.
	Spain has used the same kind of concrete reef in its waters as part of an EU project to protect and improve fish stocks. It has received millions of pounds in EU funding to produce that reef. I do not know why Spain has turned on this kind of reef, nor why it decided to use the reef as an excuse to hold up Gibraltan people who were passing into Spain at the border.
	What I do know is that the Gibraltan people are proud of their membership of the EU and want to work with Spain to their mutual financial benefit. That does not take away from the fact that they are immensely proud of their Gibraltan heritage. During the recent tensions, Gibraltarians have begun to treat the artificial reef as a hero and have affectionately named it “Reefy”. It has become a symbol of their national identity and an unofficial logo for their national day celebrations.
	It is clear that Spain is choosing to flout the historically recognised boundaries of Gibraltan waters. It is time for Britain to stand firm and make it clear to Spain what the legal boundaries should be. I do not want to see a repeat of the incident in which a British jet skier was hounded and fired at with plastic bullets by the Spanish Guardia Civil while in Gibraltan waters.
	The Bill has become even more relevant in the past week because a Spanish navy patrol boat has again been found sailing 2 miles off Gibraltar without the relevant permissions. The vessel, which was carrying out fisheries and coastal patrol duties, was challenged by the Royal Navy as it sailed in the waters south of the Rock of Gibraltar. The Spanish ship lingered in Gibraltan waters for 30 minutes before moving off. I understand that the Gibraltan Government will be launching a diplomatic protest about that incident, which showed that the Spanish are not letting up their campaign. We must step up a gear and legislate to define Gibraltar’s waters.
	Gibraltar was formally ceded to the British in article 10 of the treaty of Utrecht 1713. At the time no mention was made of its territorial waters, and some have made much play about that. In reality, however, the right of every country to define its territorial waters is clearly defined in international law, and 18th-century international treaties provided for a claim of up to 3 nautical miles. In 1982, the UN convention on the law of the sea gave us the right to 12 nautical miles, or the middle of the sea where the two waters overlap. That treaty was ratified by the United Kingdom and Spain. Admittedly, the Spanish issued a statement at the time, but—critically—they signed the convention anyway, making the Spanish claim to Gibraltan waters baseless in international law. The British and Gibraltarians have never chosen to take 12 nautical miles. We have long believed that three are enough, and it would be wrong to claim more territorial waters than are needed, especially given the sensitivity of the issue. Nevertheless, the Bill does not close the door for Gibraltar to claim 12 nautical miles in future should it wish.
	My Bill aims to enshrine in law a position that has already been formally adopted for many years and that recognises a 3 nautical mile stretch of water as Gibraltar’s. Indeed, questions have been raised in the past about why Gibraltar does not stake its legal claim to 12 nautical miles of territorial waters. That issue was the subject of a Foreign Office question on 14 February 2006, when the then hon. Member for Hereford asked why we do not claim the full 12 nautical miles. The shadow Foreign Secretary, then a Minister in the FCO, stated:
	“Under international law, States are entitled, but not required, to extend their territorial sea up to a maximum breadth of 12 nautical miles. Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent, the general rule is that neither is entitled, unless they agree otherwise, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line. The UK Government considers that a limit of three nautical miles is sufficient in the case of Gibraltar.”—[Official Report, 14 February 2006; Vol. 442, c. 1902W.]
	Of course Gibraltar could at some point in future claim the full 12 nautical miles, but the aim of the Bill is to claim 3 miles of territorial water in legislation, making the greatest effort to keep a good working relationship with Spain while supporting the interests of the Gibraltarians. Should the Bill be passed, it will complement the work of Gibraltar’s coastguard agency, which has been protecting 3 miles of territorial waters since 2011. The dedication of that team who, among other tasks, conduct general patrols of territorial waters and enforce shipping laws and port rules, should be applauded. By backing the Bill we are supporting the hard-working team who work tirelessly to protect Gibraltan waters.
	I was lucky enough to visit Gibraltar recently, along with other Members of the House, many of whom are sat on these Benches today. The overwhelming feeling
	we received was the pride that the Gibraltarians feel for their country, and their independence was astounding. We as a country should never forget the Gibraltan people and their right to decide their own destiny, and I fully support my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary when they say that we must never enter into any discussions about the sovereignty of Gibraltar without its say so.
	It is also important that when the Gibraltarians are crying out for assistance and assurance, we act in the clearest and strongest way possible. Let me be clear: Spain is our ally and friend, but we must not let Gibraltar be bullied by Spain for that reason. Spain should embrace Gibraltar as Gibraltar could be the financial powerhouse of that region. It could be similar to what Hong Kong is to China, but with one crucial difference—it will not be claimed back. I hope the whole House will back this Bill and send a resounding message of our support to our brothers and sisters in Gibraltar. Gibraltar has a right to its territorial waters, and this House supports that right.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That David Morris, Alec Shelbrooke, Andrew Rosindell, Bob Stewart, Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil, Mr Graham Brady, Mr Nigel Evans, Caroline Dinenage, Ian Paisley, Sir Gerald Kaufman, Jim Dobbin and Sir Peter Bottomley present the Bill.
	David Morris accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February 2014, and to be printed (Bill 115).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[7th Allotted Day]
	 — 
	Zero-hours Contracts

Chuka Umunna: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the marked rise in the use of zero hours contracts with recent estimates that as many as a million employees are employed on them and that they are used in over a quarter of workplaces, contributing to growing insecurity for families across the UK; and therefore calls on the Government to initiate a full consultation and formal call for evidence on the use of zero hours contracts and on proposals to prevent abuses by employers of such contracts, for example, by stopping employees on zero hours contracts being required to work exclusively for one employer, stopping the use of contracts that require zero hour workers to be available on the off-chance they are needed but with no guarantee of work, banning the use of zero hours contracts where employees are in practice working regular hours and putting in place a code of practice on the use of zero hours contracts.
	We are in the midst of the biggest living standards crisis in a generation, a crisis that is affecting every community in the country. We know that at its heart is the issue of pay. People are working harder than ever before but earning less: they have on average suffered a £1,500 pay cut since the Government came into office. We know that at the same time as wages have been falling, costs have been increasing, with prices rising faster than wages in 39 of the 40 months of this Government.
	We also know that insecurity goes to the heart of this living standards crisis, too. Those in work now feel less secure and more pressurised at work than at any time in the past 20 years, according to the most recent UK skills and employment survey. The UK Commission for Employment and Skills, which co-funded the survey, says that what we have now is a climate of fear. Indeed, research shows that double the number of people feel insecure at work today compared with three years ago.

John Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the biggest collapse in living standards occurred from 2008 to 2010 under the Labour Government, when they bankrupted the country and drove people out of work? We are trying to recover from that position.

Chuka Umunna: The right hon. Gentleman talks about us bankrupting the country. He knows, because I have heard him talk about this many times before, that the problems we had in 2008-09 found their gestation in the banking sector, which is ultimately where responsibility lies.

Ian Lucas: rose—

Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that wages have been cut by about 5% in the three or four years since this Government came to power, and that it was the bankers who started it? More importantly, does he agree that zero-hours contracts are a throwback to the 1930s when miners and dockers had to turn up to work not knowing whether they would get a job. This is a modern veneer on an old, tried and tired system that was chucked out many years ago.

Mr Speaker: Order. Just before the shadow Secretary of State responds to that intervention, may I gently say that it is helpful if everybody is clear to whom the Member who has the floor is giving way? The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) is sorely pained as he thinks the intervention was supposed to be his. I know not, but the shadow Secretary should make it clear.

Chuka Umunna: I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) too.

Ian Lucas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I just wanted to correct the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). In my constituency, the average male wage in real terms was £530.80 in 2010. That fell to £453.50 in 2011, the first year of the Tory-Liberal Democrat Government.

Chuka Umunna: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and he is right to point that out. We are in the fourth year of this Government and blame is continually attributed to the Labour party. This Government ought to look at what they are doing to our country and our economy.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) made a point about insecurity at work. That insecurity is not just borne out of three wasted years of a flatlining economy following the Government’s 2010 comprehensive spending review which caused confidence to fall and demand to nosedive; it is also because the nature of work has changed in recent years. Half the rise in employment since 2010 has been in temporary work, driven primarily by people doing temporary jobs because they cannot find permanent work—more than 500,000 people fall into that category—while record numbers of people are in part-time work who would prefer to be working full time, meaning that there is huge underemployment.
	But perhaps the most shocking symptom of the changing nature of work is the proliferation of the use of zero-hours contracts, under which a person is not guaranteed any work, is usually expected to be around whenever the employer wants them to be and is paid only for the work he or she gets, meaning, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) said, that individuals engaged under these contracts never know when work will come and therefore whether they can sustain themselves and their families week to week.

Alison McGovern: Is it not tough to listen to the Prime Minister giving answers about rising employment, given the type of employment that that represents, as we have just heard? Should the Government not come clean about the falling claimant count and listen to what my hon. Friend is saying about the type of work people are having to go into?

Chuka Umunna: This is a key point. Will any job do? We are clear that any old job will not do. We want to ensure that people have decent work that is paid a salary they can live off and which is secure too. That has to be our ambition for the country.
	I do not deny that these contracts have been in use for many years—I will turn to their use in the House a bit later—but until recently they were very much the exception to the rule. The problem is that now they are becoming
	the norm in some sectors, with the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development estimating that up to 1 million people are on such contracts.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will understand that across the House there is concern—or there should be—about this issue, and I am glad that we are debating it. He touched on the point I wanted to ask him about. Will he confirm, however, that the Labour Government never addressed this issue by making it illegal, so it remained possible throughout the whole period of their Administration? Neutrally, does he have any objective, accurate statistics on the number of people affected by zero-hours contracts during the last Government and the number of people affected since 2010 under this Administration?

Chuka Umunna: I will come to both those points in the remainder of my speech.
	Some Government Members trumpet this insecurity and talk about it as evidence of flexibility in our labour market, and it is true that some workers like these arrangements, but for most working people they mean insecurity for them and their families and leave them subject to the whim and demands of their employer to work at short notice, so the flexibility is not a two-way street; it is a one-way street in favour of the employer, and that is insecurity writ large and totally unacceptable.

Frank Roy: On Friday, a heavy goods vehicle driver for Royal Mail and his wife came to my surgery and told me that one week he works two nights, the next he might work three, and his wife explained what that meant for them as a family. What does that say about companies such as Royal Mail that use this practice continually?

Chuka Umunna: Some argue that we should not point to bad practice in the business community because to do so is to fuel anti-business rhetoric. I think that it is important that we call out people who are systematically exploiting and abusing people under these contracts. For example, Sports Direct uses these contracts across the board, whereas others, such as Asda, acknowledge that they could use them if they wanted, but do not want to treat their people in that way, and if that means that they have to spend more time drawing up rotas and using overtime arrangements in contracts, so be it; they do not want to treat people in that way.

Helen Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that firms that exploit people by using zero-hours contracts are undermining good employers who institute flexible working and annualised contracts, meaning that we are in danger of the bad driving out the good?

Chuka Umunna: I completely agree with my hon. Friend; of course, it means they can undercut others, so hers was a point well made.

Chi Onwurah: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent points he is making in support of good companies that recognise, as I know from my time in business, that those with insecure jobs will never deliver for their companies the same quality of work or be as motivated as a well-paid, secure employee.

Chuka Umunna: That was exactly the point I was just about to make. Of course, insecurity at work lowers a person’s standard of living and makes managing their family commitments impossible. As my hon. Friend says, insecurity is bad for business because insecure, poorly paid workers are less committed and less productive. It is also bad for the public finances, because if people are not getting the hours or earning a decent wage, that means less income tax and national insurance going to the Exchequer and more being paid out in credits, so everybody loses out.

Stephen Mosley: A few weeks ago, I was talking to a constituent of mine on a zero-hours contract with the Co-operative group. Is the Co-operative group exploiting its workers?

Chuka Umunna: I will come to that point very shortly.

Chris Ruane: My hon. Friend referred to the impact on families. Will he expand on that? What is the impact of zero-hours contracts on a mother’s or father’s ability to plan picking their children up from school in a week’s time, to plan family holidays or Christmas or to plan whether they can afford a mortgage?

Chuka Umunna: I will come to that point shortly and tell the House the story of a zero-hours contract worker I met recently in exactly that position.
	The Government and policy makers can acknowledge the problem, but the question is this: at a time when people feel more insecure than ever, will they just heap further insecurity on them, or will they act to do something about the situation? What have the Government done? First, we have their failed economic plan. Thanks to the policies they have pursued, unemployment and underemployment remain stubbornly high, with almost 2.5 million people still out of work, including, tragically, almost 1 million young people. I do not think that that is cause for celebration. It is welcome that growth has returned, but for all the talk of rebalancing, in the fourth year of the Government, that rebalancing looks as elusive as ever. We just have to look at the statistics that came out this morning. In today’s employment figures, of course it was good to see unemployment fall in parts of our country, but in many regions—London, the north-west, the east midlands and the south-west—it increased.

Guy Opperman: rose—

Chuka Umunna: I will give way shortly.
	Secondly, what are the Government doing to the protections for working people in the workplace? They are watering them down left, right and centre. They have increased from one to two years the length of service required before someone can enforce their right not to be treated unfairly at work and they have introduced employment tribunal fees of £1,200. The Minister for Skills and Enterprise described that as a moderate charge, but for low-income workers it is the equivalent of several weeks’ pay. The Government have also reduced the consultation period for collective redundancy. I could go on.
	Thirdly, what have the Government done on zero-hours contracts? They have done little, if anything at all. Has a full consultation and call for evidence been issued? No. To date, there has been none, despite promises at
	the Liberal Democrat conference by the Secretary of State to do so. Has the Office for National Statistics been asked to clarify how many of these contracts might be in use, given that research suggests there are far more than in the ONS estimates?

Michael Fallon: indicated assent.

Chuka Umunna: I don’t think so, because Ministers keep quoting statistics from the ONS to me, despite its having conceded that there is a real risk that they do not reflect reality.
	Have the Government devoted the same energy and time to protecting people from the exploitative use of these contracts as they have to implementing the recommendations of the Prime Minister’s employment law adviser, Adrian Beecroft, for watering down people’s rights at work? No, they have not.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the insecurity that zero-hours contracts can create, which happens in three ways: by insisting on availability even when there is no work; by requiring workers to work exclusively for one business; and by using zero-hours contracts to erode and water down the basic rights in the workplace of employees who work regular hours. Is that not what we need to clamp down on?

Chuka Umunna: Absolutely, and I will come to how we intend to do that shortly, but I give way to the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who has been waiting patiently.

Guy Opperman: The hon. Gentleman was talking about the unemployment figures. Does he accept that in the north-east they have fallen by 17,000 since February this year and are now lower than when we came into office in May 2010, and that youth unemployment is down since February by 7,000, from 12% to 9.2%? Is that not evidence that things are changing for the better?

Chuka Umunna: I do not deny that it is welcome to see anybody who is out of work getting into work, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) put it, the question is: what is the nature of that work?
	In fairness to the Secretary of State, I think he wants to act. I know, for example, that he has hit out at people in his Government who want to slash away employment protections, describing them as “head bangers” who see liberalising the labour market as “an aphrodisiac”. Who on earth could he be referring to? I suspect that he is prevented from acting by the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon)—who is sitting next to him—who has described his boss as “slipping his electronic tag” for daring to speak about the need for a more responsible capitalism, which I would argue includes companies treating their workers fairly. In any case, the Secretary of State has allowed what has happened to go on and has therefore been complicit in watering down people’s rights at work in the way I have described.
	Where this Government have failed, we will act. To pick up on the point made earlier, there are little firm data on the extent of the use of zero-hours contracts, partly because many people do not realise that they are
	on them. However, over the summer months, the Office for National Statistics produced revised figures, putting the number at more than 250,000. That is likely to be a severe underestimate, given that others have estimated that more than 300,000 employees in the care sector alone are now on such contracts. Consequently, I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), who has campaigned hard on this issue, wrote to the chair of the UK Statistics Authority asking whether the ONS would clarify the data and publish new figures in the light of the evidence that has arisen. He said that the ONS was reviewing the way it collects the data and looking at whether it can include the data collected by organisations such as the CIPD. However, finding out how many of these contracts are in use is one thing; looking at how they are used is another.

Bob Stewart: I do not like zero-hours contracts because of the insecurity they create for people, and we should have planning, but they are a fact of life. Somehow or other, this House and all of us have to find a way to reduce them. There are still six Labour-controlled councils in London using zero-hours contracts, and we have to try to stop it. It is not easy: I like to see people employed, but I also like people to have some security in their lives, and zero-hours contracts sometimes do not give that.

Chuka Umunna: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I think there is some common ground. The issue is not necessarily the use of such contracts per se; it is the exploitative use of them. That is what we have to outlaw, and I will come to that.

Steve Rotheram: My constituency has the 10th highest unemployment in the country. In the main, the people who come to my surgeries would prefer to be on full-time contracts rather than zero-hours contracts, which they are all too often forced into. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must try to stop unscrupulous employers from taking advantage of those who are less able to support themselves because of their personal circumstances?

Chuka Umunna: I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who, as it happens, intervenes just as I was about to talk about Merseyside. I was talking about collecting data on the number of zero-hours contracts being one thing and the evidence about their use being another. He will know that our hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and for Wirral South and our right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) produced an excellent report in June detailing the use of zero-hours contracts in the Liverpool area. In that report they told the story of a care worker, whom I have subsequently met and spoken to myself, as I mentioned earlier. She told me that she had to be available to visit clients at their homes at least six days a week, including evenings. Her rota could change in a flash. If visits were cancelled at late notice, she would often not be paid. If visits were added at the last minute, she would have to manage her child care commitments as she best could—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane). That is the reality of life for people under these contracts.
	In July, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) held a Westminster Hall debate on this issue. Seventeen Opposition Members contributed
	to that debate, giving further testimony about people’s experiences on such contracts. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon)—I do not know whether she is here today—talked about how she had been employed on a zero-hours contract for two years in the retail sector. I note that not one Government Back Bencher spoke in that debate—save for the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), who was chairing it—but it is good to see a few more Government Members here today.

Lisa Nandy: I was one of the Members who spoke in that debate. I raised the case of my constituent who had to leave her children locked in a car while she undertook home visits that were given to her at short notice under threat of not getting any work in future. In response to that debate, the Under-Secretary of State said that that was clearly “not right”, but since then we have seen absolutely nothing from the Government on how they will protect constituents such as mine and others, to whom my hon. Friend has referred. Does he agree that that is an absolute disgrace?

Chuka Umunna: I do agree, and I read my hon. Friend’s speech from that debate. She talked about what the Government are doing. The Secretary of State said he was carrying out an informal review, but given that that consisted of just three officials spending part of their time “speaking informally” with stakeholders—as he told me in answer to a parliamentary question that I tabled on this issue—that is clearly insufficient. Therefore, in August, I and the shadow employment relations Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), formally convened a summit, involving more than 20 different organisations representing employers, employees, legal experts and people employed on zero-hours contracts, to hear evidence and consider what action should be taken to clamp down on their exploitative use.
	Two things arose from the evidence we heard and the consultations we have been carrying out. The consensus across all stakeholders and groups was that the exploitative use of such contracts is a problem—everybody agreed with that—particularly in the care sector. Those looking after some of the country’s most vulnerable people are themselves vulnerable under these contracts. Given that it is important for those whom they are looking after to have stable and continuous care from people with whom they are familiar, I cannot see how that state of affairs can have anything other than a detrimental effect on the quality of care received.
	That state of affairs creates issues for many local authorities because of the way in which social care services are commissioned. Many of them will tell us that it is helping to drive the use of zero-hours contracts in the care sector. They say—some would say that this is not an excuse, but an explanation—that they are left with no option but to commission in that way because of the huge funding cuts they have been subjected to under this Government. I understand the challenges that local authorities face—I think we all do—but I urge them to follow the example of Southwark council, which is working with providers to eliminate the use of zero-hours contracts, particularly in the care sector.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time, and I am grateful to him for giving way on that point, which is directly relevant. He said he would come back to whether there were statistics on the incidence
	of this form of employment before 2010. To reinforce the point he is making, to my knowledge, the care sector has used zero-hours contracts for many years, under the Labour Government and this Government, and under local authorities of all political colours contracting services. There are real abuses, and if we can reach consensus, without partisanship, that one of the sectors in which we need to address them most urgently is the care sector, that will be a great service to some of the lowest-paid people doing the most difficult face-to-face jobs.

Chuka Umunna: I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that what Southwark is doing is a good thing. I note that he is agreeing with me.
	The Office for National Statistics suggests that the numbers under the previous Government were around 140,000 across all sectors, although I acknowledge that the way it has collected those data has been somewhat faulty, in part because it relies heavily on people understanding what their contractual situation is. It is fair to say, however, that there has been a significant proliferation of zero-hours contracts over the past few years. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the care sector. The use of these contracts in that sector might have been a niche arrangement before, but it is certainly now becoming the rule. That is what we need to act on.
	I do not believe that there is consensus on advocating an outright ban on these arrangements. There are people who want them, and there are employers who use them responsibly, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), the key is to outlaw them where they are exploiting people. In doing that, we need to acknowledge the people who are doing the right thing as well as draw attention to those who are doing the wrong thing.
	We should also acknowledge the need for this House to get its own house in order in respect of the use of zero-hours contracts. We know that there are people who look after us here and help us to do our jobs here who are engaged on those contracts. That is unacceptable. We should be setting an example. I know that this is being looked into at the moment, but we have not yet had a clear commitment from the House authorities not to use such contracts. I think that everyone would agree that we want to see their use in the House stamped out.

John Redwood: I want my constituents to have well paid, decent jobs, and I have a lot of sympathy with those who do not wish to see exploitative contracts. Will the shadow Secretary of State say a little more about how he would define an exploitative contract, and whether there is more we could do by way of leadership? He is an influential and talented man. Surely there is more that he could do with Labour councils and trade unions, just as those on the Government Benches can do more with the Government.

Chuka Umunna: One of my colleagues has just said to me that being praised by the right hon. Gentleman will spell the end of my career. People will point to examples of Labour-controlled local authorities, but we do not care who is using these contracts. We simply do not want them to be used exploitatively, and I will explain how we can stop that happening.

Chris Ruane: My hon. Friend has mentioned the use of zero-hours contracts in the Palace of Westminster. I have contacted the Speaker about this matter, and I commend him for his positive response. The problem also exists across the way in Lambeth palace, and I have tabled parliamentary questions to the Church Commissioners about it. The number of zero-hours contracts in Lambeth palace has gone up from five in 2008 to 34 today. Their proliferation is rampant around the country. The problem is out there, and without proper monitoring it will continue to progress. I congratulate my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State on securing this debate, which is shining a torch into those dark places and establishing that this is a big political issue that affects millions of poor people out there.

Chuka Umunna: I completely agree with my hon. Friend.
	In answer to the question of how we should deal with the problem, our motion proposes four measures that we hope the Government can support or, at least, commit to properly consult on. First, we would ban employers from insisting that zero-hours workers be available to work—be on call, effectively—even when there was no guarantee of work to give them. Secondly, we would stop zero-hours contracts that required workers to work exclusively for that employer. The Secretary of State has talked about that aspect of the matter before. Thirdly, we would prevent the misuse of such contracts when employees were, in practice, regularly working a number of hours a week. We would ensure that they became entitled to a contract that reflected the reality of their regular hours. Finally, alongside those measures, we would introduce a code of practice for the use of the contracts that would ensure, for example, that an employee recruited on a zero-hours contract would know that those were their terms of employment. We have announced the appointment of the former head of human resources at Morrisons, Norman Pickavance, to lead an independent consultation on how we could best implement those measures.
	In conclusion, I want to say something about where this will fit with the future of our economy. We need to reform our economy so that it is fit for purpose, and so that it delivers better and fairer outcomes for people. We consistently hear from some people that the best way to do that is further to liberalise our labour market, which is already the third most liberal labour market in the OECD. That is why they recoil at taking action on exploitative zero-hours contracts, but that approach amounts to a global race to the bottom in which we seek to compete with China, India and the other emerging economies by screwing down the pay and terms and conditions of working people in the name of growth.
	That is not the way in which we should be competing, because it will not deliver better outcomes for the people we represent. We will deliver better outcomes for them, ultimately, by growing those industries that can provide more of the better paid, secure jobs that they want. Of course that means promoting innovation and ensuring that our people have the skills to do those jobs. That is why I am always banging on about the need for an industrial strategy. We must act to protect those who continue to work in low-income, insecure jobs in the less internationally competitive sectors. Heaping insecurity on them is not the right thing to do.

Nick de Bois: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chuka Umunna: No, I will wrap up now as I want to give others time to speak in the debate.
	In short, we on the Labour Benches do not think that any old job will do. We aspire to full employment, and to secure and decent work that pays a wage that people can live on. That is our ambition for this country, which is why I hope that Members on both sides of the House will support our motion today.

Vincent Cable: We very much welcome this opportunity to debate this issue. It has had a lot of media coverage, and we have already had several debates on it in the House. I am happy to engage with it. I realise that the purpose of Opposition day debates is to generate opposition, but the truth is that there is quite a lot of common ground on this issue. None of us wants to see employers abusing their employees.
	The thrust of the motion seems to be to ask me to do what I am already doing. I made it clear a month ago that we were going to have a consultation on this matter, and I can tell the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) that we are aiming to clear the process through government by mid-November in order to launch the consultation formally. There is no disagreement about that.
	There are elements in the motion that I could pick holes in and disagree with. There is a call for evidence, but also, slightly oddly, a series of concrete action points that have been put forward regardless of any evidence that might emerge. That seems to be making slightly odd use of evidence-based decision making. That is a quibble, but I do not have an enormous problem with the basic thrust of the motion. I guess the hon. Gentleman has to criticise the Government, however, as this is an Opposition day debate, and I will take head-on the three specific points that he has made.
	First, he talked about our failure to act, but the problem has been around for many years, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has pointed out. The trade unions repeatedly told the last Labour Government that there was a problem in this area. The 1998 White Paper drew attention to it and suggested possible courses of action, but no action was ever taken. I know that several of my Labour predecessors looked into the matter, because concern had been expressed, and while acknowledging that there was abuse in some areas, they broadly took the view that the benefits outweighed the costs.
	The second criticism was that I did not mobilise a small army of civil servants to look at the problem earlier this summer, but what would be the point of mobilising the civil service to reinvent the wheel? A lot of sensible research has already been done. We have talked to 10 trade unions, all of which have done quite a lot of in-house work. We have also talked to several think-tanks, including the Resolution Foundation and the Work Foundation, both of which have done good work in this area. We did not need to reinvent anything; the evidence and the anecdotes are there and we are drawing on them. That is the direction in which we are proceeding.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman criticised the statistics. The problem is that we have one basic official set of statistics from the Office for National Statistics, suggesting that there are about 200,000 zero-hours contracts. That statistic is drawn from the labour force survey, and the hon. Gentleman was right to say that this is quite a narrow definition. The Chartered Institute of Personnel Development came out with a figure of 1 million, using a different measure—in other words, what employers judge the number of zero-hours contracts to be—while the union Unite has come up with a figure of 5 million. Different people are obviously measuring this in different ways. What I have done is write to the head of the Office for National Statistics, asking him to take this problem on board. We have a very serious problem of definition and numbers, so I have asked the head to pull together the relevant people so that, from now on, we can have a proper database on the basis of which to make rational decisions.

Ian Lucas: Is not the difficulty the fact that the Government have acted by removing the rights of employees to enforce their employment rights by doubling the qualification for unfair dismissal and by introducing what appear to my constituents to be huge fees to initiate industrial tribunal or employment tribunal proceedings? The right hon. Gentleman is undermining the taking of such action by legislating to take away employees’ rights. How liberal is that?

Vincent Cable: There are still significant opportunities for people who are subject to unfair dismissal. We reformed the system because we considered that it provided a very significant barrier to small and medium-sized growth companies and thus to employment opportunities with them. We think we have got the balance right.

Alison McGovern: Let me take the right hon. Gentleman back to the statistics for one minute, if the House will forgive me, because they really matter. The statistics provide the only way of finding out what is going on in our economy from the Government’s point of view. The care Minister told me that 300,000 people working in the care sector were on zero-hours contracts, so that is what the Government say; yet the Office for National Statistics—and therefore the Government again—have reported that there are 250,000 such workers in that sector. That discrepancy cannot stand. In a recent parliamentary answer in October, one of the Secretary of State’s Ministers said that his review did not seek to collect any statistics, but the Department is now reporting an inconsistency in them. Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that his Department can do better than that?

Vincent Cable: That is precisely why I am in touch with the head of the ONS, so that we can get some high-quality and consistent data. That is the whole point of the exercise.

Tom Watson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the problem is exacerbated when zero-hours contracts are taken in combination with the decreasing value of the minimum wage? That has created conditions under which, either consciously or inadvertently, rather large companies have developed business models that rely on top-up benefits to subsidise
	a work force whose take-home pay is not large enough to cover their monthly bills. That means we end up with a multinational company such as McDonald’s, with up to 83,000 staff on zero-hours contracts, being subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of about £200 million a year. We need to find a way of dealing with these contracts in order to deal with the taxpayer interest in the situation.

Vincent Cable: That depends on what the hon. Gentleman means by what he says. I think he is merely saying what is obvious, although it may need restating—that we are dealing in the wake of the financial crisis with very weak labour markets, and not just in the UK. This has had impacts on wages and on the nature of contracts. The question for the Government and legislators is whether the problems around zero-hours contracts are the symptom or the cause. The hon. Gentleman is right that the problem interacts quite powerfully with the minimum wage issue. I have made it clear that I want the Low Pay Commission to look at the minimum wage in a more positive way, but it is, of course, an independent commission and it is not my job to tell or prescribe to it how the minimum wage could evolve. I want to respect the institution that the hon. Gentleman and his Government set up.

Sheila Gilmore: Let me take the right hon. Gentleman back to his earlier point when he was, as ever, berating Labour for not taking action. Has he not chosen his own priorities? If he thinks that the previous Government were dilatory on the issue, why has he not taken it up sooner? Other legislation, including to take away people’s employment rights, has been passed, so he has had time to do this if he wanted to.

Vincent Cable: To help us move on from this point, let me say that I am the first Business Secretary out of the last seven or eight—I cannot remember exactly when the issue first came to the surface—who is actually taking action on the issue. Action will emerge from the consultation. We recognise that there is a problem and we recognise that there are some abusive situations, but we also recognise some positive things about zero-hours contracts, which I shall come to in a moment. We have determined to take action, and I am the first Secretary of State to have done so for a long time, after a whole series of Labour predecessors who, for whatever reason, decided not to.

Simon Hughes: I applaud my right hon. Friend for that. It is evident to people outside that there has been no action for many years and that now there will be. Before he completes his statement, will my right hon. Friend not only set out the timetable beyond the consultation plan, as far as he can envisage it, but say whether we can find a way of linking the discussion and review of the minimum wage with the zero-hours contracts issue? It is obvious from how the labour market works that these issues are interconnected, so it would be worth trying to bring those considerations together.

Vincent Cable: Yes, and I hope that happens. I have made it clear to the Low Pay Commission that we want to look at the minimum wage in a somewhat more
	holistic way than has been the case in the past. Of course I cannot guarantee what the commission will conclude; that is not my job.
	Before considering the advantages and disadvantages of zero-hours contracts, let me make a basic point that will probably explain why my Labour predecessors did not deal with the problem: it is intrinsically tricky. There is an issue about what zero-hours contracts actually are; they are not clearly defined. As the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said a few moments ago, we do not have a definition of exploitation, and we do not even have a definition of what a zero-hours contract is. There are a whole lot of contractual arrangements, which have two basic conditions attached to them. One is that there is no guarantee of work and no requirement under British employment law for an employer to provide a minimum number of hours. Equally, however, an individual is not required to accept an offer of work. Those are the two defining characteristics of a zero-hours contract.
	A wide spectrum of practices has come out of that. At one end of the scale, we have casualisation of different forms—we have heard about the history of the docks and other similar traditions, many of which were highly undesirable. Equally, at the other end of the scale, however, there are large numbers of traditional systems of freelance-type employment—in the creative industries and education, for example. When I started thinking about this subject, I realised that my late wife spent much of her working career on a zero-hours contract working for a further education college. She taught music to sixth formers, depending on how many turned up for their classes. It was effectively a zero-hours contract. Many people in FE and adult education worked on the same basis, and this is established practice in many other industries. In these cases, it has not been viewed as a problem before.
	I make that point to stress that the definition of a zero-hours contract is not precise. Hundreds of thousands of people—and if we believe the shadow Secretary of State, millions—are on these contracts, which vary enormously. Some people carry the rights attached to being a worker—[Interruption.] Well, Unite think it is 5 million people. Some people in these contracts have basic employee statutory rights attached to them as well. They are enormously varied.

Guy Opperman: To add to the list of contexts and sectors in which this type of contract is the norm and is welcome, let me cite rural Northumberland—represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) as well as myself. Zero-hours contracts are in place there, and because of the nature of rural employment, neither of us have found anyone complaining about them.

Vincent Cable: There are many industries of that kind, and I shall shortly enumerate them. I do not want to eulogise this system of employment because there clearly are problems with them in many sectors, but they have worked well in other sectors. That is why when it comes to rushing to prohibitions, we need to be careful about the unintended consequences.

Nick de Bois: The Secretary of State gives me the opportunity of raising the point that I was hoping to raise with the shadow Secretary of
	State. I would never have knowingly employed someone on a zero-hours contract, because I do not like such contracts and do not think them appropriate, but it is clear that many managerial, technical and education people are working on them. However, the suggestion in the Opposition motion of
	“banning the use of zero hours contracts where employees are in practice working regular hours”
	will catch people who are quite content to work on that basis, when, I imagine, the target is those who are abusing the system. That is why I would find it difficult to support the motion. I would welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on that.

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that is why a rush to ban certain forms of general practice could have serious negative unintended consequences. That is not to say that we should not do something, but a commitment to ban without having obtained the evidence would be highly premature.

Chuka Umunna: First, of course people will not want to complain about being on such contracts, because they worry whether they will get the hours of work if they do so. Secondly, the evidence suggests that such contracts were not used during our time in government to the same extent that they are being used now. That is why action was not taken. The right hon. Gentleman said he would do something about the issue back in June. Why was a consultation not started then? Why has he waited until October?

Vincent Cable: After years of waiting and a long discussion about the technicalities, the idea that we are somehow failing in our duty because we did not rush to act within weeks or months is utterly absurd. We are taking action. A proper consultation will be launched, we hope, in mid-November. On the back of that, all the organisations that have not yet had an opportunity to make representations to me can do so, and we can proceed to the appropriate action.

Ian Davidson: I welcome the tone and content of the Secretary of State’s comments. As he may be aware, the Scottish Affairs Committee has also started an inquiry on zero-hours contracts, and I hope we will have co-operation from the Government. Will he clarify the timetable, on which he was asked for information earlier, for the consultation? When will it start and finish? When does he envisage making decisions? When does he envisage bringing forward legislation?

Vincent Cable: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a concrete date. The consultation will be launched in the middle of November, and such consultations normally take several months. The level of feedback will determine how quickly the Government can respond, and that in turn will dictate how quickly we can introduce legislation, if that is what is required. I am happy to co-operate with him and his Committee, which I am sure has specific Scottish insights.
	I want to enumerate some of the positive and negative aspects of zero-hours contracts that our review has revealed so far. There are some groups of people for whom such contracts provide a useful and appropriate kind of employment, regardless of sector. For many people, for example, who are at or beyond retirement
	age and want to keep in touch with the labour force but do not want permanent employment or even an agreed part-time employment contract, such contracts are quite an attractive proposition. There are other people, in industries that are subject to quite a lot of volatility, who want to remain connected with the labour force but do not want to be in a position where they have taken on permanent employment and are then made redundant. The car industry provides a good example. One reason the car industry is successful is that our labour market has a mix of people, some of whom are on zero-hours contracts. When I went to the United States to negotiate with people in General Motors, who were deciding whether to come to Britain or Germany, one factor that weighed heavily in favour of the UK was our flexible approach to employment, including zero-hours contracts, along with the fact that the unions, mostly Unite, had been constructive in putting those arrangements in place.

Ian Lucas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Vincent Cable: I will finish my list of points.
	Another group is students, some of whom are looking for work experience, and most of whom want to be in a flexible arrangement that reflects the fact that their timetable varies. Another group—a very important one—is people with family and caring responsibilities. For someone in that position, the most important attraction of a job is to be able to say no when work is offered, without facing disciplinary procedures, and to be on a contract that explicitly acknowledges that work can be declined.

Sheila Gilmore: Does the Secretary of State not realise that there is a huge difference between someone who wants to work part-time and to know what part-time hours they have, and a situation where they do not know and have no control over the hours they work? The notion that it is easy for people on such contracts to say, “I won’t take those hours because they do not suit my child care arrangements this week” is not the reality that many people are facing.

Vincent Cable: I am going on to explain some of the problems and, sometimes, abuses that we encounter, some of which are of the kind that the hon. Lady describes. I am trying to set out both sides of the argument. The arguments are quite complex, and the more we dig into the evidence, the more it becomes clear that there is not a simple black-and-white approach to these problems. Let me take her challenge. Clearly, there are abusive situations, and I will go through some of the most obvious ones.
	The first was mentioned by the shadow Secretary of State: exclusivity arrangements, where people are bound into a contract with one employer and are not offered any hours, but cannot take employment from someone else. At first sight, that is a very unsatisfactory arrangement. We discovered that that kind of arrangement operated, for example, with the staff at Buckingham palace. When we pursued it, we discovered that one reason is security vetting, as the arrangement prevents people from being able to pop in and out of different firms. I do not know whether that is the justification in the case of Buckingham palace; there is some complexity to the argument. In general terms, however, I would accept that exclusivity is a very, very undesirable practice.

Brian H Donohoe: It is exactly that practice that happens in railway maintenance, only because certification is needed. Surely in such circumstances it should not be legal for people to be forced into a situation in which they do not get any work for weeks on end.

Vincent Cable: I am sure the hon. Gentleman has given a totally genuine example. I am not a lawyer, but there is at present a common law defence against exclusivity. I can see the practical problems of bringing a legal case against big companies, but none the less some legal protection exists. I accept that in many cases exclusivity may be highly undesirable, and in our consultation we will try to establish what concrete action, if any, we can take about it.

John Redwood: When the Secretary of State holds his consultation shortly, will he consult on the extent to which there is a problem and try to get a definition of it, or will he consult on possible remedies to the abuses he has identified?

Vincent Cable: Such abuses are highly relevant, but people may come forward and explain, as I have done, that for certain contexts, groups of workers and sectors, such a contractual arrangement is necessary and positive and it would be unhelpful to take action. We have an open mind. We are not trying to close down the debate.

Tom Watson: On remedies, the Secretary of State raises an important point. He referred to the success of the Low Pay Commission earlier. Could one outcome be a new and enduring institution—a triumvirate model that involves employers, trade unions and Government—to resolve the complex issues that will continue to face industry in years to come, after the consultation is over?

Vincent Cable: It could be, but I know from my interaction with them that setting the minimum wage is a complicated enough issue in itself, but I will certainly bear the suggestion in mind.

Jim Shannon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Vincent Cable: I will enumerate a few more points and then take further interventions.
	Exclusivity is a serious issue. The second point, which I think one or two Labour Members have been trying to make, is that there are cases where the simple lack of predictability is damaging for families trying to manage their personal finances responsibly, especially those who are employed on a regular basis for a long period of time and are then, in the jargon, zeroed down. A problem would flow from that. Then there are people who are on zero-hours contracts for many years and for whom it becomes a way of life. There may be good sectoral reasons for it, but in some cases it is a way of keeping them out of regular employment with the various obligations that are attached to it. In our gathering of evidence, we have encountered two specific instances. There are people who sign up to a zero-hours contract in good faith, because it gives them and the employer flexibility, but they then take advantage of their right to reject work and are discarded because they are allegedly inflexible, defeating the whole purpose of the contract in the first place. We found that other people were
	indeed pressurised into taking zero-hours contracts against their better judgment and against their preference. All those things happen, and they must be weighed against the undoubted advantages that some individuals and some industries gain from having the option to make such arrangements.

Jim Shannon: At a time of economic squeeze, when those who tender or apply for contracts find that their prices must be lower, they are forced to apply the minimum wage and to restrict working hours, and that has an impact on those who are on zero-hours contracts. Does the Secretary of State feel that the Government have a duty to ensure that the tender process gives workers rights, whether it takes place at Government level, at council level or at regional level?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman is right to view the matter in that broader context. Several Members, including the hon. Member for Streatham, have already given the example of domiciliary visits in the care sector. I have encountered cases in my constituency involving people whose working conditions are very poor, who are on zero-hours contracts, whose pay is very low, and for whom there is no chance of no progression. When we dig into such cases, as I did on one occasion, we may discover that the companies concerned are not profit-making companies but charities, and that the real cause of the problem is the very poor price at which they took the contract. The origin of the problem therefore lies in local government. The zero-hours contracts and, indeed, the minimum wage issues are symptoms rather than causes.
	Let me list some of the matters that we will be considering in the consultation, and explain how we will approach them. It is important for us not to close down options. First, there is the issue of exclusivity. We could do nothing, and rely on existing law; we could ban it; or we could provide effective information and guidance requiring employers to justify it. A number of legal interventions are possible.
	Secondly, we must consider the cases of people who are employed on zero-hours contracts for very long periods when they do not choose to be. Should we introduce a system requiring employers to offer permanent employment at some stage?
	Thirdly—and probably most important—there is the issue of transparency. We can argue in favour of fairness, and we can also argue that, for the economic purposes of a flexible labour market, if rational people know what they are doing, that is a considerable improvement. The problem that we have discovered, and to which many Members have already referred, is that when people accept a job offer they are often not clear about the obligations and limitations that are involved. Should we introduce a code of conduct requiring proper transparency and information? Should it be voluntary, should it be a Leveson-style code with statutory underpinning, or should it be controlled by a stronger sanction-based body? We have a range of options, and we will view them with an open mind and act accordingly.

Brian H Donohoe: Given that many employees have recently been denied access to tribunals, what the Secretary of State has said is surely illogical.

Vincent Cable: I think that the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating the problem. It is true that we have reformed the tribunal system, and access is less easy than it was. As I have explained, we are trying to create a framework within which small and medium-sized enterprises can expand and take on workers.

Sammy Wilson: Much has been made of the potentially exploitative nature of the contracts, but if an employer is up against it, is it not more likely that a zero-hours contract will become an exploitative contract? Should not the Secretary of State consider ways of squeezing and squeezing to make zero-hours contracts not the norm, but very difficult for any employer to enter into such contracts with employees?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman has made, in his own way, a point that I have made several times, namely that a zero-hours contract may be a symptom rather than the cause of the problem. Many employers are indeed up against it, on the margin of survival—those in Northern Ireland probably more than most—and use such contracts in order to survive. That presents challenges of its own.

John McDonnell: I think that the overall issue of enforceability is critical. Without trade union rights, these commissions and contracts become unenforceable.
	I should also like the consultation to consider a public-interest issue. The example of track maintenance was given earlier, and it is a matter that I have raised on previous occasions. Network Rail, for instance, has contracted out a large amount of work to sub-contractors, who have then sub-contracted it themselves. Some track maintenance workers are now employed by as many as eight or a dozen employers, and are all on zero-hours contracts. That has undermined the safety regime that we introduced following the disasters at Southall, Paddington and elsewhere.

Vincent Cable: I was not aware of that particular detail. I hope that the rail regulators and the Health and Safety Executive are taking it fully into account.
	An issue that has not been mentioned today, but which arose several times during our discussions, is the relationship with jobseeker’s allowance. Many people feel that if they decline a zero-hours contract there will be a sanction, and they will lose their benefits. I can make it absolutely clear that that is not the case, but during the consultation we will examine the processes that are being followed just to reassure people that there is no hidden sanction.
	We recognise that zero-hours contracts present a real problem. We also recognise that it is a very difficult problem, which may be why our predecessors did not engage with it. There are issues of definition, and there are enormous gaps in the database. However, I can assure the House that if, as a result of the consultation, we identify serious issues for which there are practical remedies, we will take action.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: There is no formal time limit, but approximately 10 Members are seeking to catch my eye, and we have just under two hours left for Back-Bench speeches. Members can do the arithmetic for themselves.

Linda Riordan: I will keep my comments brief, Mr. Speaker.
	It is clear that the increasing number of zero-hours contracts is one of the last taboos of employment policy. The firms involved have no need to use those contracts: they know exactly how many employees they need each week. Moreover, zero-hours contracts are immoral, they exploit hard-working people, and they enable the powerful to dominate the powerless. In Halifax, unemployment levels are very high, job security is low, and youth unemployment has almost doubled in the last three years. That appears to me to be a licence for some employers to introduce zero-hours contracts.
	What most people want—like the rest of us—is stability, security and reassurance in employment. What zero-hours contracts provide is exactly the opposite. Some say, “Is such a contract not better than no job at all?”, but that misses the point. Many advances in employment practices would never have been made in the last 100 years if the “status quo” option had always been taken. Only recently, the very same argument was used to warn of the dangers of the minimum wage.
	This is obviously not a stable time to be in employment, especially in northern towns. They have borne the brunt of the Government’s cuts, which have affected both public and private sector jobs. There are many well-run companies and decent employers in both those sectors in the town that I represent. They include J&C Joel and Harveys. They care about their employees, they know what it is like to manage a budget and they want to keep the town on an even keel. So when I talk about zero-hours contracts, I should add that not all companies in my constituency are practising this policy, but sadly it is an increasing trend, and, quite simply, they are an unethical and unwanted means of employing people. They are an employers’ charter to make shortcuts, reduce wage bills and avoid employment rights obligations.
	I know there are various contract laws that prevent an outright ban, but as the shadow Secretary of State said, they should be outlawed. Things can and should be done to water down the opportunity for them to be used. We need to look at guaranteeing hours and extending statutory employee rights to all workers, whatever contracts they are on. All workers should have trade union rights and family-friendly rights. Equality in employment should not be decided by a worker’s contract.
	It is in times of economic hardship that employers exploit and those without a voice do not get listened to. This is exactly the time when we should be doing more to protect those hard-working people we constantly hear about in sound-bites, but who are actually ignored because of the lack of sound policies.

Brooks Newmark: The hon. Lady is making some excellent points, but will she at least acknowledge that there are groups in society who do appreciate the flexibility that zero-hours contracts provide, such as young students and some single mums?

Linda Riordan: We have had these debates about students before, and I have a stepson who is a student and has a zero-hours contract, and that is all very fine, but there is no reason why the employer’s manager cannot get together with my stepson and arrange the hours for the following week. It happens all the time.
	This Government are actually on the wrong side for hard-working people. I know of a company in Halifax. A very hard-working young man came to my last surgery. He had been made redundant and had his benefits cut. He was living off family. He wanted to work and was given a zero-hours contract and told to turn up every morning at 6 am. The company has a board and if a person’s name is not on it, they are sent home and told to come back the day after—after they have spent money on travel. This young man so much wanted a job that he said, “Please don’t send me home. I’ve travelled all this way and spent money getting here. Can I sweep up today? I’ll do anything.” He was told, “No, your name’s not on that board. Come again tomorrow.” It is not rocket science to find a way to let people know the day before—or the week before, in my opinion—whether there is work for them. That is a long-established company. It has not been around for just two minutes and is on a budget. It knows exactly how many employees it wants but it keeps people dangling. These are Dickensian practices that would be out of place in Victorian England, let alone 2013.
	There are thousands and thousands of people, many in my Halifax constituency, who are exploited in this way, with lower wages, fewer holidays, no sick pay and fewer rights, and who are unaware of their employment status. The employers are in a dominant position and they know it. We have come a long way in improving working conditions in this country over many years, but clearly the journey still has a long way to go.
	When people look back in years to come, I think they will look at the exploitative policies of zero-hours contracts and find it hard to believe that in 2013 such practices were in place as a means of suppressing workers who need and deserve better. For my Halifax constituents, and those across the country, we need to do more to end the shabby practice of zero-hours contracts that have no place in a society that deems itself to be a progressive one.

Guy Opperman: It is an honour and a privilege to speak in this debate and it is right that we debate low pay and the nature of contracts. I should make a declaration: as a former barrister, I was unquestionably on a zero-hours contract in that I was an employee whose employer was not obliged to give me work, and I had to accept that. It is certainly the case that in rural Northumberland there is an acceptance that these types of contracts help to plug a gap. I am not going to attack local authorities, whether Liberal, Conservative or Labour, which have utilised them in the past and continue to do so. I suggest it is a question not of this House being for or against zero-hours contracts, but of this House being against inequitable and exploitative zero-hours contracts.

Alison McGovern: I am intrigued by what the hon. Gentleman says about his previous experience. In a report that I and two of my colleagues produced, one person told us:
	“It has been very difficult as I want to move on with my life but can’t as I don’t know when and if I will be next out of work so this stops me from committing into anything financial like moving out or furthering my education”.
	I hope he can identify with that experience, perhaps not in his own life, but in reality, in our economy now. He says we should not be for or against, but I really hope he is against that sort of experience, where people cannot commit to bettering themselves because of these sorts of contracts.

Guy Opperman: As a barrister, I spent two and a half years without a contract. With respect, I therefore suggest I do have some experience of that, with no contract whatsoever. I accept that it is right that this House is addressing these issues, and it is right that we are collecting and assessing evidence. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has put in place the consultation and that over this winter we will be obtaining evidence on this issue.

Charlie Elphicke: One thing that strikes me is that there is a big difference between employment and self-employment. Is it not important that we are clear which of those zero-hours contracts relate to self-employment and which to contracted employment, and are therefore not being used appropriately?

Guy Opperman: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The shadow Secretary of State said that the jobs figures are not satisfactory, but he also accepted that we in the north-east are delighted that the jobs figures are finally improving significantly. Youth unemployment has fallen by 7,000 since February and is now back to the level of May 2010. Adult unemployment in the north-east has fallen, too.

Ian Lavery: Is it not a fact that the unemployment figures for the north-east have been the highest in the country for a number of years? The figures released recently appear to show a reduction, but a lot of that is to do with people who are on zero-hours contracts.

Guy Opperman: I accept that the north-east has higher unemployment figures than some parts of the country, but the May 2010 unemployment figure for the north-east was 80,105, a 6.4% rate, and it is now 78,525, a 6.3% rate. It is also true that successive Governments have welcomed the fact that part-time work and some types of zero-hours contracts have formed the basis of employment. That continued under the previous Government and it has continued under this Government. The question is the extent to which there is exploitation.

Ian Lavery: The figures have fallen very minimally in the north-east since 2010. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is largely due to people being on zero-hours contracts?

Guy Opperman: I have no evidence to suggest that a fall of 17,341 from February 2012 to September 2013 is all due to zero-hours contracts—in fact, I suggest that it is not, although clearly some of these contracts are involved, and nobody disputes that. As I said to the Secretary of State, in the north-east the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and I have not received a specific complaint about the utilisation of these contracts in the rural environment in which we work, because such freelance contracts are generally welcomed, although not in every case, I am sure.
	In welcoming the job numbers, may I make my final point—

Charlie Elphicke: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Guy Opperman: I will not, because a number of people wish to speak.
	My final point is that we need to widen the terms of the debate on zero-hours contracts to consider the minimum wage and the living wage. I welcome the work of the Archbishop of York. I should declare that I serve in the High Pay Centre with such notable right-wingers as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who leads the Green party in this House, and the TUC general secretary, Frances O’Grady. We have been looking at not only high pay, but low pay; we have been trying to address the problems that definitely do exist and making the case that the living wage and the minimum wage need to be addressed and embraced as we go forward. I agree with the earlier point that it is bizarre that we have a subsidy system whereby tax credits, in effect, subsidise the employment of low-paid workers. That needs to be addressed.
	The final point must surely be this: the living wage has been proven not only to save the taxpayer money in the longer term, but to improve productivity and to benefit the business. One need only look at the US retail giant Costco to see that. It has broken the mould, paying its staff $11.50 an hour compared with the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Its chief executive has said:
	“We know it’s…more profitable in the long term to minimise employee turnover and maximise employee productivity, commitment and loyalty”
	by paying a living wage. I certainly continue to support that.

Paul Farrelly: Mr Speaker, I am glad to see that the House rota with Madam Deputy Speaker is working, so that you all know what guaranteed hours of work you have in this place.
	With up to 1 million or more people subject nowadays to the sometimes pernicious insecurity of zero-hours contracts, it is timely that we return to this subject now that the House has returned. For me and for many people, not least those in the trade unions, it comes with a weary, sad sense of déjà vu. It was back in 1995, nearly 20 years ago now, when I worked at The Independent, that I remember first pursuing the issue of the abuse of zero-hours contracts, as they have come to be known. Those with long memories like mine will recall that the controversy was sparked by the case of Michael, a 17-year-old student in Glasgow who was asked to clock off and on up to four times a day at Burger King, and was sent home unpaid when there were not enough customers around. Burger King was then owned by Grand Metropolitan, part of the old-school “beerage”, and the irony was not lost at the time that its charitable arm, the Grand Met Trust, was in line to run a big, privatised careers service—of all things—in London.
	Burger King eventually paid more than £100,000 in compensation to nearly 1,000 employees who had been either sent home or made to stand around, unpaid, until business picked up. Craig Bushey, Burger King’s then managing director in western Europe, said all the way back in 1995 that
	“the action taken by Burger King puts this issue to rest and demonstrates our commitment to equitable employment practices.”
	I do not know where Mr Bushey is now, but I wonder what he would have to say about Burger King still being right up there at the top of the list of users of these contracts, along with other high-street names ranging from Sports Direct to Wetherspoons.
	However, by no means all, or the biggest or most successful, high-street names use these contracts. Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons, for example, see no need to use them; my hon. Friend the shadow Business Secretary also mentioned Asda. Responsible employers, they recognise a trade union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. They negotiate with that union flexible contracts that provide workers with guaranteed hours, and other rights that most of us take for granted in a civilised society, but that also mean the work force can respond to fluctuations in consumer demand, as affect other industries.
	If Burger King’s Mr Bushey were still around, one might expect him and his counterparts to ask, “Why does my business need these contracts when these other great high-street names and other businesses do not?” One would certainly expect him, if only for damage limitation purposes, given the controversy now, to look at all his outlets to investigate what was happening in practice, and to see whether poorly paid, unrepresented workers were being abused these days in other ways. One would certainly expect him, having done so, to have no fear of engaging full on with the full-blown consultation and formal call for evidence over the use of these contracts which Labour’s motion calls for today.
	Along with other Labour Members, I welcome the content and tone of the Secretary of State’s response to this debate and his plans for November. After all, there is a recent precedent: the last Labour Government did exactly the same in the run-up to the agency workers directive, another measure that we discussed to promote fairness in the workplace. I will say a little more about that in a moment. Following the debate in recent months, there is already ample evidence to support such a call, to look at the causes and sometimes deeply damaging effects of zero-hours contracts and short-hours working, and, indeed, how the agency workers legislation is functioning in practice.
	We have mentioned examining the use of these contracts in respect of care workers and the effects on the care at home of the most elderly and vulnerable people in our society. We also need to look at their use in further and higher education, at their growing use in contracted out publicly commissioned services and the public sector, generally, and at their overall effect on the services provided. Last but not least, we need to examine their use in the private sector, on the high street and beyond, and their effect on young people and on families, on their further education and training, and, therefore, on our society and economy as a whole.

Charlie Elphicke: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful and considered speech. My constituents in Dover and Deal are also deeply concerned about zero-hours contracts and that there should be fairness in the workplace. Does he agree that it is important that we understand how many of these contracts there are? The Office for National Statistics says that the number has not changed much over the past 10 years, whereas Unite gives a figure of 5 million and the Chartered Institute of Personnel
	and Development has another figure. Is it not really important that we nail down exactly how many of these sorts of cases there are?

Paul Farrelly: The hon. Gentleman is correct; getting the right statistics is absolutely germane to implementing proper evidence-based policy. Coming from Dover, he will appreciate the example cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs Riordan) from her constituency, which sounded tantamount to some of the practices employed at ports in years gone by.

Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Like him, I have long been a trade unionist, in my case with the GMB, which shares his concerns. What he said about care workers was right, but will he also take on board the impact on their clients of the uncertainty that is created?

Paul Farrelly: My right hon. Friend is right to say that we must focus on the effects on not only the people themselves, but the services they provide. Only at the beginning of this week, on the “Today” programme, we had a vibrant discussion about what these employment practices mean on the ground for the amount of time that care workers are able to give to the people they are supposed to be looking after. That should be part and parcel of this continuing debate.
	I welcome the Government’s call for consultation, but hope it is implemented properly, with a wide-ranging call for evidence. I wish to conclude with a few choice words for my own Front Benchers, too. I welcome my hon. Friend the shadow Business Secretary’s opening remarks and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition’s commitment to remove some of the insecurity and vulnerability involved in these sorts of contracts. Because taking advantage of vulnerability, a relationship where power resides all on one side, lies at the root of exploitation that a civilised society should simply not tolerate in the modern age.
	I remind my hon. Friend the shadow Business Secretary that fair treatment of agency workers was there in black and white in our 2005 manifesto. It was long before his time but he gets the point that I am coming on to, as he is nodding. In 2007, I and many of my hon. Friends sought to put that pledge into effect through a private Member’s Bill, the Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill. The Government, though—and it was before my hon. Friend’s time—far from welcoming that with open arms fought us, bayonets fixed, in the trenches. It took our late colleague, the former Member for Crewe and Nantwich, Gwyneth Dunwoody, at her magisterial best to press a closure motion in the Chamber against Government filibustering even to give that Bill an airing.
	The Bill was followed by another private Member’s Bill in 2008, sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) and again contested. Eventually the Prime Minister—our Prime Minister—relented, the agency workers directive was implemented but the compromise, with a 12-week qualifying period open to all sorts of abuse, was not a happy one. I am not recounting this for old time’s sake or gratuitously to open old wounds. That measure was
	aimed at tackling the unfairness and insecurity, the fear of substitution by cheaper agency workers, people on cheaper contracts which, for example, lay at the root of many people’s support for parties such as the British National party and their fears about immigration. Business opposed that measure, as it opposed the minimum wage.
	The Government were content to go along with and, frankly, acquiesce in what I would call economic growth on the cheap, but nothing does come cheap. Nothing comes for free. There is always a price to pay and we certainly saw the political effects with the rise of the British National party and in many areas the UK Independence party. I am glad to see that we on the Opposition Benches have now got it fully, as is clear from everything that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said about levelling up, not levelling down, and not engaging in a doomed race to the bottom.
	To conclude, I look forward to continuing to pursue the Government to have a proper consultation on zero-hours contracts and to look at wider aspects of the issue, such as short hours working and the use of agency workers. I look forward also to safeguards being included in our manifesto and being implemented by a Labour Government after 2015.

Alison McGovern: I shall begin my contribution by continuing to quote from some of the people who kindly gave their view to the report that I and two colleagues undertook earlier this year. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), whose idea it was that we do that. He was very insightful in encouraging me and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) in our campaigning on the issue.
	The people who shared their experience with us were brave to do so and I want their words to be heard in the House. The example that I gave when I intervened earlier shows the impact of zero-hours contracts on ordinary members of the work force. That person said:
	“It has been very difficult as I want to move on with my life but can’t as I don’t know when and if I will be next out of work so this stops me from committing into anything financial like moving out or furthering my education more as I do not know if I will be in long term work as I am always waiting for them words that I am now a permanent employee. This has not only brought stress on myself but people that are nearest to me as it tends to be them that I vent my frustration to”.
	That shows not only the economic impacts, but the social and emotional impacts of those contracts.
	Somebody else told us that it was
	“Awful. It’s depressing and demoralising. I feel I have no rights and constantly question ‘why am I even bothering to work?’ Some weeks it would be more beneficial for me to sign onto job seeker’s allowance”.
	I am sure that is not what this Government want. It is certainly not what those of us on the Opposition Benches who believe in the dignity of work want to see, but I am guessing that it is not even what this Government want—people who feel that it might be better for them just to claim benefits.

Charlie Elphicke: The hon. Lady makes a very powerful speech. Does she welcome the fact that the Business Secretary held a review over the summer and is conducting
	a consultation? Does she, like the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), regret that more was not done in past times?

Alison McGovern: My grandfather, who was a great trade union rep, always told me: “When you go in and see the boss, never say you’ve done nothing; always say you’ve not done enough.” I think my hon. Friend has learned that lesson.
	The big problem is the one that I raised earlier with the Secretary of State, which is that the Government seem to be all over the shop with the number of people affected and what is really going on. My only regret is that they did not take the opportunity of the summer to clear the matter up properly. We will engage with the Government and move forward to try to get a resolution, especially on the care sector, which is very important to me. I shall come on to that.
	First, I want to say something about values. Although the economics are extremely important, so are the values. Some of the worst effects of zero-hours contracts are felt not where people have a high level of skills, but where people have little other option. In the care sector, for example, workers often have a low level of skills and are often women, possibly later in their career, who already have little power in the workplace. When zero-hours contracts are used in place of proper management, they are left in a terribly vulnerable position. It leaves them, in effect, begging for work. To me the indignity of begging is not tolerable. It is not tolerable for people to beg on the street and it is not tolerable for people to beg for work. That is what is wrong with zero-hours contracts. They risk far too much power being put on one side of the table in discussion of the contract of employment. This is an economic issue, of course, but it is a question of how we want to live together and relate to each other in society.
	We are storing up some serious economic problems with zero-hours contracts. In the short term they involve a cost because people’s income is likely to be reduced as a result of their underemployment. If they are wasting time constantly trying to get more hours, as we heard in our survey, people have no time left to find another job, which might be a better job and might improve their prospects, which would, in turn, improve their and their family’s capacity to spend money and keep our economy going. Also, the insecurity that they are suffering means that in the short term they cannot commit or make spending choices that would otherwise be helpful.
	By the way, we heard examples of people who were constantly told that they were going to get more hours than they did. That short-term impact of feeling that they would have money coming in and then finding that they did not has a massive knock-on effect on the rest of our economy, but it does not affect the whole economy equally or in the same way. The parts of the country with a lower skills base are much more likely to suffer from this, so zero-hours contracts feed into the imbalanced economy that we already have.
	There are long-term economic effects from such insecurity. I quoted earlier from one of the people in our report speaking about their inability to invest in themselves, for example by going back to school, college or university and making a long-term choice to improve their prospects, which they felt unable to do because they did not know what was going on at work. Similarly,
	people were unable to get a mortgage or decide to make a long-term investment in their housing, which will have a knock-on impact. A further effect is the impact on the skills base of our country.
	I am aware that in the case of students, who have been mentioned as an example, zero-hours contracts are a fair arrangement. There is no power imbalance and that is fine. I am also aware that for some people on zero-hours contracts there is an investment in their skills. But do the Government think it is more or less likely that employers in this country would invest in the skills of people who had permanent, stable contracts or those whom they had put on zero-hours contracts? I think that the skills base in particular parts of the country will inevitably diminish as a result of this so-called flexibility in the labour market.
	Zero-hours contracts clearly do not affect every part of the country in the same way. The Merseyside city region has developed well over recent years—against expectations, I think—and we did much better through the recession than anyone thought we would. I am extremely proud that the Liverpool city region is doing well—no one will catch me running it down. However, the biggest barrier to Merseyside’s development is our people’s level of skills. We cannot afford to have employers who are not committed to investing in our people, not just because it is bad for our people today and they do not get the opportunity to improve themselves, but because it stores up problems. If the Government are not prepared to take this matter seriously because of concerns about the amount of money people will have in their pockets, I hope that they will take seriously the long-term impact such contracts have on the prospects for a balanced economy. I wanted to ask the Secretary of State to include the impact on skills in his review and consultation. He is no longer here, but I am sure that the Minister will pass on the request.
	What is the solution? I am sure that it will come as no great shock to the House to learn that I am extremely supportive of the Labour policies outlined in the motion. I am incredibly pleased that the leader of my party has chosen to take such a stand on this issue. It is not fair to say that the previous Labour Government did not act to protect vulnerable people in the work force. One of our greatest achievements was the national minimum wage. The regulations that implement it contain all kinds of requirements to ensure that people earn a decent amount of money. That is at the heart of this debate. I think that we ought to be extremely proud of that institution that protects people in our country.
	However, it is right that we should go further, and it is absolutely right that we should crack down on exclusivity and look at the people who work regular hours but whose employers are not prepared to commit and give them a proper contract. In the short term, the report that colleagues and I produced suggests a code of practice, and that has been the first stage in our discussions with employers and others. I think that we can get on with that. If there are employers who want to discuss that with us, as there are in Merseyside, we should do so.
	I also want briefly to pay tribute to Unison for its work as a trade union and for its ethical care charter. It is a shame that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) did not congratulate Southwark council—I speak with a slight interest, as I am a former deputy leader of the Southwark Labour
	group—on adopting the stance that Unison did a good job in articulating what is needed in the care sector. We know that in that sector zero-hours contracts are wrapped up in a whole other agenda about ensuring that people have proper dignity and respect. I hope that Ministers will focus their review on what is going on in the care sector. There might be whole swathes of the economy where there are fewer problems, but there most certainly are problems in the care sector, and I hope that Ministers will pay attention to that.

Brooks Newmark: I have been listening to the hon. Lady carefully but am still not clear where she is coming from. Is she objecting to the use of zero-hours contracts or simply to the abuse that can occur when they are used?

Alison McGovern: As I said earlier, there will be examples of employment—student employment is the classic example—where there is no power imbalance and where we can look at the practice in an industry and say, “This could be okay.” I have said that from the outset and all the way through this debate. However, if the hon. Gentleman would like to read the report that my colleagues and I put together, he will see quotes from people who spoke with us about their experience. If he is not concerned about the experience of those workers, I think he should be.

Brooks Newmark: rose—

Alison McGovern: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is rising to tell me that he is concerned.

Brooks Newmark: I totally agree with the hon. Lady that we should be stamping out abuse, but I have listened carefully to all Opposition Members who have spoken and it seems that their direction of travel is to cut zero-hours contracts completely. The Government want to stamp out the abuses, but does the hon. Lady—I will ask her once again—want to abolish zero-hours contracts completely?

Alison McGovern: I will end this here, because other Members wish to speak. That is not what I have said, and it is not what other Members have said.
	In conclusion, zero-hours contracts are clearly a massive issue for our economy. We have seen the Government move from saying at the beginning of the year, “This isn’t a problem and we don’t know what the statistics are saying” to saying now that it is an issue. I only wish that they could have done more. I absolutely applaud the motion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Gordon Birtwistle.

Gordon Birtwistle: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. First, the hon. Gentleman was here for the opening of the debate but had to pop out briefly, so I held him back in the list of
	speakers and have just dropped him back in. I do not want to hear Members shouting, “He hasn’t been here.” Secondly, I point out that some Members who have indicated that they wish to speak were not here for the opening speeches. They will be dropped down to the bottom of the list. While I am on my feet, I remind Members that the debate will end at 3.40 pm, so if Members do not make shorter speeches a time limit will have to be introduced, and it will be quite tight.

Gordon Birtwistle: Thank you for clearing that up, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was here at the start of the debate and approached Mr Speaker to explain that I would have to leave for a brief appointment that I could not change. He kindly said that that was fine and that I should come back, which I have done.
	I will not delay the House for long, because the Secretary of State covered most of the concerns I have. I think that he covered the questions set out in the motion fully by agreeing to undertake a full consultation on the issue in November and to come back to the House in a few months with his conclusions and some proposals.
	One aspect of the motion that I agree with relates to exclusivity in zero-hours contracts. A good friend of mine who works as a security operator at Burnley college approached me a few weeks ago and said that he thought that his zero-hours contract was very good because it suited his lifestyle and the way he wanted to work. His objection was that it was exclusive. He would have liked to have been able to have zero-hours contracts with numerous employers, because that would suit him down to the ground. He could work to suit his lifestyle and that of his family, because he found it difficult to work for just one company that occasionally did not give him any work for five or six days, and that could be taken away, so it would benefit him greatly if he could have various zero-hours contracts with different companies.
	Zero-hours contracts have been used for years. My wife worked as a personnel officer for a number of Boots stores 20 years ago, and zero-hours contracts worked perfectly. People were called in as they were needed and they were happy with what they got. It still works like that. One of the benefits is for young people who are out of work. My new researcher in Burnley was working in a bar on a zero-hours contract because she could not get a proper job before she came to work for me. Having come straight from university, she found that getting into the habit of going to work under a zero-hours contract was absolutely brilliant, because it got her into the ethos of going to work. She found that a really good start to her working life. It is really good. Stacks of zero-hours contracts are given out in the pub and entertainment trade, and most of the people who work in those industries are very pleased about it.
	One of the benefits of zero-hours contracts, as I have said, is that they get people used to getting up for work. Three years ago, Burnley was one of the top 10 unemployment blackspots in the country. Unemployment was dreadful. Since then we have dropped to 159th place on the list and unemployment has dropped from over 8% to 5.7%. I keep hearing that the north of England’s unemployment is climbing and that things are really bad. Burnley, which was an unemployment blackspot, is now a very prosperous town. A lot of people who were working on zero-hours contracts have now transferred into full-time employment and are enjoying the jobs and roles that they are carrying out.

Ian Lavery: Will the hon. Gentleman give the figures for how many people are on zero-hours contracts in Burnley?

Gordon Birtwistle: I do not have those figures. I only know that I have spoken to a lot of people who were on zero-hours contracts, were happy to be so rather than not working, and have now transferred to permanent contracts that are part-time or even full-time. The figures for Burnley show how successful they have been. That has been a boost for the town and for the people who work there.
	I accept that, as the Secretary of State says, there are problems that need to be resolved. Those problems have always been with us; they have not started in the past three years. The Secretary of State is facing the issue head on, unlike Labour Members, who for 13 years did absolutely zero about it. In fact, their zero attention to zero hours was quite marked. He is asking for a full report and will come back to this House in a few months to give us his conclusions.
	I hope that the problems are resolved and that zero-hours contracts continue. I would not like them to end, because that would take away the choice that working people have. They can work zero-hours, part-time or full-time, and it is really important that they have that choice. However, there are problems with companies taking advantage of these contracts, and we need to sort that out. I am delighted that the Secretary of State has taken that on and look forward to seeing his conclusions in the near future.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Having considered how much time is left for the debate, I am now going to set a time limit. I have accounted for every Member in the Chamber who has indicated that they want to speak, and I am setting the limit at seven minutes starting with the next speaker. Obviously, if there are lots of interventions I might have to review that in order to make sure that every Member gets at least some time during the debate.

Sammy Wilson: In the interests of other people being allowed to speak, I will not take any interventions because it would be unfair at this stage, although I am usually quite happy to do so.
	Let me first say that I do not know how extensive zero-hours contracts are in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the debate so far indicates that we do not know the quantum of what we are dealing with. Anecdotally, however, I am becoming more and more aware of the problem because people come to tell me about how they find themselves being squeezed by this form of employment, whether it is parents complaining about the conditions for their children who are going into jobs for the first time or care workers on contracts in the public sector.
	Government Members have said that for many people this situation is acceptable. In many cases that is only because there is no alternative. It is not that people want and welcome this with open arms; it has huge consequences for them. They do not have security of employment. They do not have what many of us have been fortunate to have during our working lives, whereby people can
	take on loans and mortgages, know that there are prospects of advancement in their work, and know that their employer is investing in them and is therefore prepared to enhance their skills to make them even more employable in future. All that is lost to people on zero-hours contracts.
	I understand the need for flexibility in the labour market, but I am increasingly concerned that zero-hours contracts are being used as a tool by managers who are too lazy to look ahead. Sometimes it is not the case that they do not know what is ahead. For example, last Monday, I was with a constituent who told me about her care workers who are on these kinds of contracts. They are called into work in the morning until lunchtime, called in again in the afternoon until teatime, and then called in again in the evening. The employer’s contract is with a health board. I do not believe that he does not know for how many hours he is contracted to undertake work for that health board. Therefore, I do not understand why he cannot properly utilise his work force and take the opportunity to give those individuals more security of employment.
	Some Members have drawn a distinction between zero-hours contracts that are normal and those that are exploitative. I do not believe that there is such a distinction, because potentially every such contract is exploitative. When an employer is really squeezed, he or she has the flexibility to say to someone, “There’s no work for you today. I took you on on certain conditions and you accepted that you were on a zero-hours contract. I could probably offer you 12 hours a week, but I’m sorry that’s not available any longer”. Then people can sit for days or weeks with no work. They may have taken on the contract only because the employer said, “Normally this will be what’s available to you” even though it was a zero-hours contract. Those contracts do become exploitative. When the Secretary of State is looking at the way forward, if there cannot be a total ban—for which, in certain circumstances, a good argument could well be made—we should at least start to look at how it can become the exception rather than, as I suspect, increasingly the norm.
	Several aspects have been well highlighted in this debate. First, these contracts should not be exclusive because this should not be a one-way relationship. It has been said that it suits both partners, but very often it does not. I think of what has been said by people on zero-hours contracts who have come to see me. The contract is operated by the employer and the employee is afraid to say, “I’m not coming in tomorrow because it doesn’t suit me” because they probably accepted the contract in the first place only because they were desperate for work. At least, as suggested by the Opposition, there should be no exclusivity. That would be one way in which an employee could say, “I’ve got other options open to me.”
	Secondly, where zero-hours contracts operate in the public sector—many are found in charities and employers who work on public sector contracts—there should be much more rigour about the conditions attached to those who are employed in firms that win public procurement contracts. That would squeeze out an awful lot of these contracts.
	Thirdly, if it is shown that an employee has had regular work over a period of time even though they are on a zero-hours contract, the employer cannot really argue, “I need that flexibility”, because the
	employee has had regular hours already. That should be another area where we can start to squeeze out these contracts.
	Zero-hours contracts are not only bad for employees but bad for the economy. If employers themselves thought about it, they should realise that there is no better way to have a work force that is loyal to them than by treating them right. These contracts, especially when they are used in an exploitative way, do not treat employees right and therefore have an impact on the quality of the work force. In the longer run, as the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) said, what employer is going to invest in their work force if they treat them as people who can be taken on and disposed of when they feel like it?

Julie Elliott: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the shadow Business Secretary has secured this Opposition day debate, which is about an issue that many hon. Friends and I have been campaigning on for months, if not years.
	In July, as we have heard, I led a debate in Westminster Hall on zero-hours contracts. I do not intend to condense that rather longer speech today. In it, I referred to individual cases in care homes and explored the wide-ranging use of these contracts in the NHS, including for tens of thousands of nurses and midwives. Instead, I intend to take a broader approach and look at what the widespread use of these contracts says about our labour market.
	I am pleased to note the presence of Conservative and Liberal Democrat colleagues, because in my Westminster Hall debate in July I was dismayed to see not a single Conservative or Liberal Democrat Back Bencher in attendance. Although the 17 Labour MPs who spoke led to an interesting and worthwhile debate, I have attended many Labour party meetings in my time and the debate was a missed opportunity for real cross-party dialogue.
	It cannot be that not a single person in coalition constituencies is employed on zero-hours contracts. In fact, unlike the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who has said that he has not come across anybody in rural Northumberland who is unhappy with these contracts, I have met such people and they are out there.
	I have spoken to many people who are on these contracts. Some are happy with them, but the vast majority are not. We should all be concerned that this country essentially has a large pool of workers living permanently on call, without guaranteed incomes, who do not know whether they will be able to pay their bills. We cannot sit by while workers on zero-hours contracts earn, according to research by the Resolution Foundation, 40% less than those on regular contracts.
	A Labour Government would ban employers from insisting that zero-hours workers be available when there is no guarantee of work; stop zero-hours contracts that require workers to work exclusively for one business; and end the misuse of these contracts where employees are, in practice, working regular hours over a sustained period.
	I believe that an outright ban would be neither helpful nor practical. Labour is clear on that. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) seemed to be under the illusion that we were calling for an outright ban, but that is not the case. A ban on zero-hours contracts could lead many less scrupulous employers simply to introduce one-hour contracts. We know that that is a realistic possibility, as the rise of zero-hours contracts seems to be linked to the closure of loopholes by the introduction of temporary and agency workers regulations.
	As I have said on previous occasions, the issue is not zero-hours contracts, which have always been around, but the massive increase in what seems to be exploitation of workers, by which I do not mean employees, because the people on these contracts are not classified as such.

Paul Farrelly: My hon. Friend will remember from her time at the GMB—which, to correct the record from earlier, represents Asda employees in my constituency—that many agency workers find it hard to get mortgages, because they are not considered to be full-time employees. If someone on a short-term, zero-hours contract is asked whether they are a full-time employee and they answer honestly, does my hon. Friend agree that they, too, may find it difficult to get a mortgage at a time when mortgages are far more difficult to get hold of?

Julie Elliott: I agree. In fact, those people face difficulties in getting not just a mortgage, but a rental agreement, because they are not classified as an employee.
	We need to take a more holistic approach to reforming the labour market. We need to understand that zero-hours contracts are just one of many ways that people in this country are having their rights eroded and their living standards squeezed. Energy costs, food costs, rail fares and private rental costs are hitting people’s pockets on the one hand, and unfair working practices are making them feel insecure for their incomes on the other.
	The Labour party, like everyone in Britain, wants to see economic growth, but there is more than a lingering sense that sustained economic growth, when it comes, will not halt this cost of living crisis, because rail fares will still go up, the price of food will still soar and the cost of rent will continue to go through the roof. The hundreds of thousands of Britons who are on zero-hour contracts, temporary contracts or the minimum wage will not see the fruits of that growth.

Charlie Elphicke: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Julie Elliott: No. I am going to carry on so that others have a chance to speak.
	Many lost their jobs or were forced to accept stagnant wages during the downturn, but they are seeing none of the proceeds of growth during the upturn. Those in work are earning, on average, £1,500 a year less than they were in 2010, while others have no choice but to put up with zero-hours contracts. Meanwhile, those out of work have been left on the failing Work programme.
	The Institute for Fiscal Studies has calculated that for every pound spent paying the living wage, the Treasury saves 50p through not needing to pay tax credits and benefits. The Resolution Foundation has calculated that if everyone receiving the minimum wage received the living wage, there would be a £2.2 billion net saving,
	comprised of higher income tax and national insurance receipts. There is growing evidence that living wages boost productivity, motivation and performance and reduce the leaver and absentee rates, thereby offsetting the cost of the higher wage. The people who reject this analysis are the same people who said that the national minimum wage would lead to vastly higher levels of unemployment, but they were wrong—it simply led to higher wages.
	I have welcomed the Government’s review of zero-hours contracts, but I think it is wholly insufficient. Indeed, parliamentary questions tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) have found out that the Government have allocated all of three officials to the consultation. They are holding informal discussions with stakeholders without any formal calls for evidence or consultation. The irony that these three officials are looking into zero-hours contracts on a part-time basis should be lost on no one.
	Reforming zero-hours contracts and increasing the number of people on the living wage is not just the right thing to do for hard-working people; it will also be good for the economy. Instead of shares for rights, we need to improve working conditions and boost wages. It is an injustice too far to expect people to live a life of permanent uncertainty, and I urge the Government to take a small step that will make a big difference.

George Freeman: We all know that a job is the building block of a decent society and a decent economy, that the creation of jobs is the most urgent imperative that this economy faces at present, and that holding a job is the key to the dignity and respect that we want everyone to experience and that we want to spread to those who, sadly, have not experienced it to date. The appalling debt crisis that we face and the crisis in youth unemployment that we inherited from the previous Government make this mission more urgent and vital than ever. The creation of new jobs is, and should be, at the heart of the mission of this Parliament.
	We all agree that long-term employment with a stable employer and the investment in training that goes with it is the model to which we aspire. Indeed, in most cases that is the model that prevails. The proudest achievement of my life before coming to Parliament was helping to create six new businesses that now employ more than 500 people in the life science sector. I agree with a number of my colleagues that the creation of jobs is one of the most important things we have done.
	This crisis reminds us that the private sector is the only sustainable basis for the prosperity on which we all rely. It is the private sector that creates the tax revenues that fund schools, hospitals and the public sector, which employ others. One of the lessons of the past 14 years and the previous Government’s mismanagement of the economy must be to restore that truth and remind ourselves that private sector job growth and business growth are absolutely key to our prosperity.
	We need to make it easier for youngsters in particular and others to get into work, and we need to encourage flexibility for the modern work force, including women, students and part-time workers. That is why I have recently called for a new deal for new business. Having worked in the creation of small businesses, I know at
	first hand how often the regulations and red tape that have been designed for, and often with, big business make it harder to create new businesses and new jobs.
	Nobody wants to see exploitation. It may suit Opposition Members to claim that we are living in a dark age of Victorian exploitation, but that is not the picture that resonates—we are not. I welcome the fact that the Government have launched a consultation, and the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) and his colleagues have been very clear that we want to stamp out abuse. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) intervened earlier to highlight the important difference between stamping out the abuse and exploitation of zero-hours contracts—which may well go on; indeed, I have no doubt it does in some cases—and saying that zero-hours contracts themselves are a bad thing and should be banned. I welcome the fact that the Minister himself is an ardent and passionate advocate of the importance of flexibility in the work force, and that he is bringing that zeal to the two Departments he represents in order to drive and support the Government’s growth agenda.
	I say that for three principal reasons. We are living through a profound revolution in the world of work and in the economy. Call it the new economy or the innovation economy—the truth is that many more people in this country are now working in small businesses and are self-employed, and the projections for the next decade or two suggest that the numbers will grow. Small businesses and entrepreneurial, innovative businesses demand far greater flexibility than the bigger businesses that we have relied on in the past.
	More women and students are coming into the work force. I recently visited the maths department of a university and during the break, there were 40 start-up companies in the foyer that were run not by graduates of the maths department, but by undergraduates. The students of today are entrepreneurial and are starting businesses. We need to embrace that new world. We can only trade our way out of the debt crisis. To do that, we must rediscover our buccaneering spirit of enterprise and entrepreneurship as we take on the global forces of competition. We will not succeed with a work force and a labour market that are shackled by the old ways.
	My second reason for supporting the Government on this matter is that zero-hours contracts have received strong support from senior and respected voices in the worlds of business and human resources. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has said that zero-hours contracts can benefit employees as well as employers. The Institute of Directors has referred to zero-hours contracts as a
	“vital tool in our economic recovery”.
	John Cridland has said that if we had not had zero-hours contracts,
	“unemployment would have topped 3 million”.
	My final reason for supporting what the Government are doing is that it is working. The Government’s labour market reforms have had a stunning impact on our rate of job creation. There are 872,000 more jobs in the economy than there were at the time of the last election. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are shaking their heads. They do not like it, but it is true. Some 1.4 million private sector jobs have been created since the last
	election. Three jobs have been created in the private sector for every one job that has been lost. This country is creating jobs at twice the rate of the United States of America—a market that we have traditionally looked at and envied its rate of job creation.
	Let us stamp out exploitation. Let us criminalise the exploitation of zero-hours contracts where we can, but let us not shackle the flexibility that we need to create the new businesses and jobs on which we will all rely.

Lisa Nandy: The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) says that what the Government are doing is working and that the picture that the Opposition are painting does not resonate around the country. If he had listened to the speeches of the shadow Secretary of State and my hon. Friends in this debate and if he had heard the debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) earlier this year, he would know that what the Government are doing is not working and that a picture of misery is unfolding in communities around the country, including in my own community in Wigan.
	I do not intend to rehearse that picture, because the shadow Secretary of State described it eloquently. Suffice it to say that over the past 12 months, I have represented low-paid women who work in the care sector, which has been mentioned in this debate, countless young people, and adult men and women with families to support who are trapped on zero-hours contracts. Does it surprise the Minister that this week, the British Red Cross launched its first ever emergency appeal to feed families in the UK? The picture is unfolding, but we have a Government who will not take action to tackle the problem. Other hon. Members have spoken about the problems of low pay, insecurity in the workplace and deskilling.
	I want the Minister to know that there is an anxiety that lives with people who are on zero-hours contracts, not just from week to week, but from day to day, about whether they will be able to feed their children, about whether they will be able to pick their kids up from school and about whether they will be able to arrange child care. That anxiety is corrosive and devastating. Alongside it, there is an indignity and humiliation that runs through people’s lives when they do not know whether they will be able to provide for their families, whether children or elderly relatives, or even themselves. People are being put in a situation in which they are powerless and that is wrong.
	Although I welcome the Secretary of State’s tone and his promise to do something about the problem, too often in the years before I came to this place I heard consultations used as an excuse not to do something. I hope that is not the case with this consultation. In any case, there is an urgency to this problem because many families up and down the country simply cannot wait.
	I will make a few brief points in the short time that I have remaining. First, there has been a lot of debate about whether zero-hours contracts should be banned outright and whether that is practical. It has been said that in some circumstances, zero-hours contracts are good for people. I do not really understand the argument
	about students. I do not understand why anybody would want a job in which they were guaranteed absolutely no work. I have never met anybody who wants that. I listened to the Minister carefully, but I still do not understand that point. There is clearly a difference between people who are trapped on zero-hours contracts and are desperate for more work but cannot get it, and people who value a bit of flexibility. The problem is that zero-hours contracts used to be a stepping-stone into better-paid, more secure work. It is becoming increasingly clear that they are no longer a stepping-stone.
	I was proud to stand alongside the Hovis workers in my constituency when they went on strike because 28 workers who had had full-time contracts were replaced by people on zero-hours contracts. They stood alongside one another and said that they would not accept two people doing the same job at different rates of pay and with different levels of security. That sort of two-tier work force is the thin end of the wedge and is bad for everyone. I was proud that Premier Foods accepted that argument, stepped in and reversed the situation. Premier Foods has gone from being a buzzword for bad employment to being a buzzword for how to take action to become a good employer. I am proud that that happened in my constituency.

Ian Lavery: Is it not the case that a number of Hovis workers were made redundant and that other people were taken on on zero-hours contracts to save the company money?

Lisa Nandy: Indeed. I am grateful to all the hon. Members who supported those workers and me. That situation reflects something that is happening in their constituencies as well.
	The Hovis strike was not just about zero-hours contracts. As my hon. Friends have made clear, there is a growing casualisation of the work force in this country that is corrosive and is deeply worrying to all of us. As the shadow Secretary of State said, we have one of the most deregulated labour markets in Europe. Many more people are now in temporary work and low-paid jobs. Clamping down on zero-hours contracts and their exploitation is just one part of what we must do. I hope that the Minister understands that.
	This problem affects young people disproportionately. We know from history that when young people are trapped in situations in which they cannot advance themselves or their families, it causes hopelessness, despair and anger, and the associated problems that go with those feelings. We owe young people better than that. I would like to hear what the Minister proposes to do urgently for those young people.
	What we are saying is not anti-business. We have heard much about the employers who are using the flexibility that zero-hours contracts provide to exploit the work force, but there are many employers who are not doing that. The shadow Secretary of State gave the example of Asda, which is taking a stand against such treatment of the work force. It is essential that the UK leads the way in showing that things can be levelled up, not levelled down, for the benefit of everybody. Otherwise, employers such as Asda who are making decent choices, doing the right thing and investing in their communities will be at a disadvantage and we will be tilting the playing field.

Caroline Dinenage: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lisa Nandy: I will not, I am afraid, because many of my hon. Friends have sat through this debate and are desperate to speak.
	As many hon. Members have said, this problem affects entire sectors. We should be very concerned about that because, as I have said, such contracts are not a stepping-stone. I am particularly worried about the care sector and home help. This problem affects the low-paid people—mainly women—who work in that sector. It affects their children, their parents and their whole family. It also affects us, because if we value that profession so little that we allow this practice to be used across the country, we allow people to be given no money for travel time between appointments and we allow packed rotas that mean that older people get 15 minutes to have all their care needs met, what does that mean for our parents, our grandparents and our neighbours? I hope that the Minister will listen to the voices of people around this country who are devastated by what they are seeing.
	Finally, the Secretary of State spoke a lot about getting redress and taking on employers, and about a code of conduct. In truth, however, it is incredibly difficult for someone who is being threatened with no more work to take action. Have we learned nothing from the blacklisting scandals that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) has done so much to uncover and condemn? When Ministers say that we want to give people the ability to take action on that issue, why are they restricting access to legal advice and hiking up employment tribunal fees?
	It strikes me that the Government are frightened of challenge, and they are standing together with their friends in the business community to stop people who have everything to lose from being able to take action. Whatever the Government do, the Minister must understand that rights are no good without the means to enforce them, and we need concrete action to ensure they can be enforced.

Brooks Newmark: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and I have a feeling we are in danger of violently agreeing with one another—I do not think there is any Government Member who does not agree that we should be stamping out abuses, and as we heard, the Government are beginning a consultation to look into that issue. However, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), it is the responsibility of the Government to turn things around—particularly given the mess we inherited in 2010—and to create growth and jobs. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during Prime Minister’s questions, we have created more than 1.5 million new private sector jobs, including 1 million net new jobs. Last week the IMF turned around its criticism of the UK from a month earlier, and said that compared with the rest of the world, the UK is doing pretty well. Growth is returning, which is good news, and jobs are being created.
	I do not think any Labour Member said that they completely oppose zero-hours contracts, which is because an economy needs flexibility on both sides. As we heard
	from the Secretary of State, the elderly want flexibility in employment, for example, as do young students or young mothers who have child care and do not necessarily have natural fixed hours. Zero-hours contracts can suit a number of people in our economy. I listened carefully to what Opposition Members said, and it is important to have robust employment protections. As we heard from the Secretary of State, and as we will no doubt soon hear from the Minister, the Government are beginning a consultation to look into the practices raised by Labour Members. I oppose such practices as strongly as they do.
	The previous Government did nothing to investigate how zero-hours contracts were used when they were in power. Is any Member aware of an investigation into that issue during Labour’s 13 years in power? In fact, according to the Office for National Statistics, in 2000 there were 225,000 people on zero-hours contracts.

Charlie Elphicke: Has my hon. Friend also noticed that the Opposition raised the issue of blacklisting, about which they also did nothing whatsoever when in government?

Brooks Newmark: My hon. Friend is right, and I point the finger at several Labour-run councils in London that use zero-hours contracts: Tower Hamlets, Ealing, Merton, Hounslow and Newham. Those councils do not provide guaranteed hours or any such thing. Are Labour councils stopping the use of zero-hours contracts? Not a bit of it. The Government, however, have helped the low paid by taking more than 2 million people out of tax altogether, and cutting taxation for another 25 million people. That is what the Government should be doing—encouraging jobs and protecting those on low pay.
	As we have heard, the Government have been doing a good job trying to create jobs in the private sector, but we must protect people against the abuses to which Opposition Members referred. We heard wonderful statistics from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk, who mentioned the number of jobs created in the private sector. I repeat: 1 million net jobs have been created, even though, as we heard in Prime Minister’s questions, Labour Members predicted 1 million job losses. The Government have been doing a good job.
	As someone who is a champion of women, and the founder of Women2Win, I note there are now more women in work today than ever before in our history, which is good. As the hon. Member for Wigan said, however, we must also protect those women who need flexible hours from abuses. I believe and am confident that the Government will look into the abuses to which she referred, which we do not approve of or support.
	There are, I think, about half a million job vacancies, some of which are on zero-hours contracts. That is a good thing and gives people the opportunity to get on the employment ladder. Overall, I believe the Government are doing a good job. Statistics are coming out, and in the past week alone, British manufacturers have said that they have seen the strongest growth on record, breaking the figure for every quarter since 1989. That proves that the Chancellor has been rebalancing the economy. That is the challenge we inherited from the previous Government. We over-relied on the financial services sector, and the Chancellor is rebalancing the economy.

Caroline Dinenage: I congratulate my hon. Friend on a fantastic and dynamic speech. Does he agree that manufacturers need a dynamic and flexible workplace to flourish? I speak as someone who owns a manufacturing company. Those who may not have previously been in employment also need a dynamic, flexible workplace so as to consider getting into the working world.

Brooks Newmark: My hon. Friend is right, particularly about small manufacturers who cannot necessarily take on fixed costs. I was in business for 20 years and know it is tough out there. It is still tough for many manufacturers who are working with low margins. They cannot take on fixed costs, so zero-hours contracts are a good thing that suits them and people in that environment who are looking for flexible hours. The services sector, too, has had its strongest growth in 16 years.
	Overall, zero-hours contracts have a role in society. I have not heard a single Opposition Member condemn absolutely zero-hours contracts, although they all mentioned the abuses. The Government are doing their bit to ensure that we remain ever vigilant against the abuse of zero-hours contracts, and I applaud their initiative to take forward that consultation to tackle those abuses as soon as possible.

Ian Lucas: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), because it gives me an immediate opportunity to rebut the bulk of his remarks and give him a reality check. Far from the blue skies that appear to be above his constituency and those of Government Members, yesterday a factory in Wrexham closed and 231 people lost their jobs. In 2010-11, the median gross weekly earnings for a male in my constituency fell from £530.80 to £435.50, and for a woman from £416.60 to £364.30. That was the immediate impact on the earnings of my constituents of the first year of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government coming to office. That is what I call a cost of living crisis.
	The Conservative party also introduced a VAT increase, supported by their Liberal Democrat comrades—before the election they said they were not going to do that—which imposed an immediate financial burden on individuals in my constituency, whatever their income. That is the reality of the cost of living crisis that the Government parties are imposing.
	We are debating zero-hours contracts today, rather than five years ago, because the increase in the number of those contracts is a response to the massive inequality of bargaining power that now exists between employers and employees, and the fact that employees are desperate for any type of work. The worst employers exploit them because those people are under major financial pressures.
	I will not take any lectures from Government Members on running a business. I ran my own business for four years, employing 10 people, before I became an MP in 2001. I know that it is best to treat employees with respect and work with them. If employers are flexible with employees, employees will be flexible with employers. Unfortunately, with zero-hours contracts, we have the worst type of exploitation. Employers exploit the financial weakness of individuals who are desperate for work and to secure any type of employment.
	A constituent came to see me—

Caroline Dinenage: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Lucas: I will not because my constituent’s story needs to be told. He told me not to use his name or the name of his employers because he is scared he will get sacked if I speak publicly. He had been employed for more than three years and was on a contract for 10 hours per week. He normally worked 36 hours per week—he worked those hours regularly, but invariably worked for more than 30 hours. However, because his employers would not give him a contract for more than 10 hours, he could not get a secure tenancy or apply for a mortgage. He had to ring up on Friday evenings to find out what hours he would be working the following week. That was the impact of a zero-hours contract on that individual.
	I was pleased at the tone of the Secretary of State’s remarks—he is a reasonable man—but my parents told me that I should always judge people by their actions, not by their words. In government, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories have taken away the means for employees to protect themselves from exploitation. They have doubled the qualification period for people going to employment tribunals and introduced a £1,200 fee for going to a tribunal. That is more than twice the median weekly earnings of individuals in my constituency. That, and not the flannel, tells us all we need to know about the attitude of the Government parties. They are not about fairness for the work force or a balanced relationship; they are about the worst kind of employers exploiting employees.
	I was astonished that the Secretary of State referred to our automotive sector in relation to zero-hours contracts. He seemed to suggest that zero-hours contracts in that context were analogous the exploitation of workers who do not have trade union representation. The fact is that contracts are negotiated by trade unions in the automotive and aerospace sectors to introduce flexibility, so that there is a balanced relationship between employer and employee. The key point is that those contracts are negotiated and agreed to—the employees who take them on do so voluntarily, and they are normally negotiated through their unions.
	Trade unions are vilified and attacked every week by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box, but, as the Minister knows, they are an integral part of the Automotive Council and the Aerospace Growth Partnership. The automotive and aerospace industries are two of our most successful industries. That is the model we want—of industry and employers working together with employees.
	Employees should have rights. Warm words are all right, and it is all right for the Government to say they sympathise with people who have to manage such arrangements, but if they take away their rights of redress, they can do nothing about their situation.
	Let us look at the Government’s actions, not their words. I hope their actions improve, and that their inquiries and investigations lead to concrete progress. To date, they have removed rights from people in vulnerable situations. They should not be proud of that, but it tells my constituents where the Government stand.

Charlie Elphicke: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), if only to rebut so much of what he says. My constituents
	in Dover and Deal are understandably concerned about zero-hours contracts. I represent a port. Many in the ports and maritime sectors are, and have been for many years, on zero-hours contracts and have informal working arrangements with their employers. Many of my constituents work in social care and frequently raise their concerns about zero-hours contracts. I have told them that I will raise those issues in the House of Commons so that Ministers and the Government are aware of them.
	There is a big difference between the Government and the Opposition. Labour Members have sat around since 1997, 2001 or whenever doing precisely nothing whatever about zero-hours contracts. Now they are in opposition, they suddenly raise the issue. Someone has raised it with them, and a few weeks later they have come to the House to say, “It is right that action is taken where things have gone wrong.” It takes a special cheek for the Opposition to come to the House and say, “We didn’t do anything about it for 13 years, but, right now, we expect immediate action.” That is not the right way to do things. They are politicising what is an important and delicate issue for many of our constituents, which is highly unhelpful.
	My constituents have raised serious issues. Not every zero-hours contract is an abuse. Many people work for 30 or 40 hours a week on zero-hours contracts. As the hon. Member for Wrexham said, they have problems getting mortgages and tenancies because they do not have that baseline. I share those concerns and hope that the Government will consider carefully what can be done for people in that position. They have legitimate concerns and action ought to be taken.
	Some people are preyed upon by their employers—they are given no hours, or given informal hours, and cannot plan their budgeting from week to week. That is unfair and it is right that the Government are looking at exclusivity. Frankly, those people are self-employed and should be allowed to seek work elsewhere. That would be a fair and just employer-employee relationship. The Government were right to look at that in the review in the summer. It would be right to focus on it in the consultation and to take action on so-called exclusivity clauses.
	It is important that we understand our constituents’ concerns. When they come to our surgeries, they tell us that they are worried that if they raise the matter with their employer, they might not have a job by the end of the day. I have had many such cases, which I view with considerable concern. It is right that we work to rebalance the situation. The flipside, as all hon. Members know, is that, for many people, zero-hours contracts have the flexibility that works for their lives. How people live their lives and secure the flexibility they need in their employment is an important consideration.
	The Government need to focus on achieving the important flexibility that many people need, but also on ensuring that people are not preyed on and exploited. I am a Conservative MP representing a constituency where there is a lot of deprivation and where many people are not well paid. An important part of the Conservative party is that it believes in protecting people. Yes, enterprise and profit are important, but there is a difference between profit and profiteering. We need to ensure that people who have unequal bargaining power can ensure they have the protection of the law they
	require to get a fair settlement. That is what the Government need to focus on, which they are doing. I welcome the action that the Secretary of State and the Conservative members of the departmental team are taking.

Sheila Gilmore: I visited a constituent who had initially presented with a problem about paying her rent. She was in arrears and was worried about what was happening. However, the reason for her problem—the kind of work she did—quickly emerged. She was a care worker on a zero-hours contracts, but did not get flexibility. She had to wait for a text message—this is a new form of having to go down to the docks and standing in a queue—to see if she was going to have work. In that week, she had been given two evenings of work at very short notice—this creates substantial problems for people’s ability to plan.
	We have to address the underlying issues. Why is this happening in care, which is such an important area of work? There is knock-on effect to the quality of care. If people do not know until the last minute whether they are going to be working, the recipient of care has no idea who will be visiting them. That is important to the quality of care and to the security of those receiving care. Those who suffer from Alzheimer’s find it particularly disturbing and distressing for carers to be changed all the time. The issue is broader than the employment conditions of my constituents; it is about quality of care.
	Why is this happening? It did not used to happen. It did not happen in my city when most home care was carried out by those directly employed by the council. A lot of home care was put out to tender in my city under the council run by the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party. It decided to save money and boasted to the local newspapers about how it had saved the council tax payer £2 million, but at what cost and whose cost? Companies put in cheap bids to show how we could all save money and they now have to make up that money by how they employ their employees.
	This is not an accident, nor is it abuse by bad employers; it is a structural issue. I am concentrating on care, but I am sure there are other areas where this is happening. If we want this to change, we have to be much more honest about the cost of care and how we are going to pay for it. It is not enough to provide care on a shoestring. I emphasise that I am talking about Scotland. People sometimes think we have cracked the care problem because we have free personal care, but councils such as mine have only been able to manage that process—they were given no extra money to help them do it—by contracting out. The contractors have set up these kinds of employment arrangements to make it work. It is not good for the people who need care, it is not good for employees and it is not good for the rest of us.
	The situation is getting worse. It is easy to say that there were always some of these kinds of contracts, but a large department store in my city was employing one of my constituents on a part-time basis for many years. It was part time and that suited her. What did not suit her, however, was being told, “Sorry, we cannot offer you this kind of contract anymore; we can only offer you a zero-hours contract where you may have to work in the evening, at weekends or on Sundays.” That was not going to help her with her child care. When she
	argued the point and said, “I can’t do this,” the response was, “Well, go and find another job. There are plenty of people who can.”
	This is a changing employment pattern that has been getting worse, and I do not think it is altogether accidental. It fits the narrative of the Government’s welfare reform programme. During the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill, there was much waxing lyrical from the Government Benches about the joys of mini-jobs—small jobs that people would be able to do because of the structure of the new benefit. That fits very well with zero-hours contracts, because the state will be subsidising employers by making it easier for them to give people mini-jobs with zero-hours contracts and they will hopefully be able to survive because their income will be topped up.
	In the debate there has been an illusion about the choices that people are able to make. Self-employed contractors have the freedom to choose to work when they want to, usually on a pretty good hourly rate. There is a huge difference between choosing to work in that way and it being the only choice an employee has. Having control over working hours and a working pattern is very different from being forced to work. There is no choice if it is the only work on offer and it is the employer, not the individual, who decides when to work—that is a major difference. It can be very nice for individuals to be flexible if they have a choice about their working arrangements. That is not what so many of my constituents now face.

Ian Lavery: The statistics put forward by Government Members on the use of zero-hours contracts are amazing. It would appear that zero-hours contracts are absolutely fine, with just a few abuses that need to be ironed out—absolute nonsense. Zero-hours contracts are an outrageous abuse for tens of thousands, even up to 1 million people. One or two people think that they are okay and that it suits them. This is the difference between the two sides of the House. Opposition Members believe there is a lot of abuse; coalition Members believe the opposite. They believe that zero-hours contracts are fine, as long as they iron out one or two abuses—absolute rubbish. That is not the case. I must live on a different planet.
	We have heard this afternoon about fantastic employment figures, so many private sector jobs being created and the demise of the public sector, which is apparently great news. That has not happened where I live. What we have seen in my area is a reduction in unemployment, but with more people on zero-hours and part-time contracts and a huge increase in people who cannot make ends meet. Looking at employment figures on their own is therefore unacceptable.
	Flexible working is an employers’ utopia: back to the bad old days of queuing up at the factory gates, the shipyard or the pit and asking to be employed for the day. As has been explained, even that does not happen anymore. Instead, people receive a text or a phone call to find out whether they will have employment. That is a little different from what the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) said about being a barrister waiting to see where his next £10,000 an hour will come from.
	That is the difference between the Government and the Opposition: the barrister can make £10,000 a day or an hour, but the people we are representing are not even making the minimum wage.
	I wanted to refer to a number of things, but obviously I have not got time, so I will briefly consider how people actually manage on these zero-hours contracts. I am talking about people living in the real world, struggling, perhaps not earning the minimum wage, getting up in the morning wanting the best for their families—don’t we all want the best for our families, to put food on the table and to give our kids the up-to-date clothing, like everyone else in the school yard? Let us put ourselves in the position of somebody on a zero-hours contract. Perhaps both parents are on such contracts. How on earth can they plan a month ahead, two months ahead, a year ahead? Forget that if they were in full employment with a proper contract, they would have employment protection—forget that just for a moment and look at the social side; they are running out of money on a weekly or monthly basis because they do not have the hours; they are getting into debt, borrowing money from friends or Wonga or taking out a payday loan, because that is the only way they can make ends meet.
	That is what is happening with people on zero-hours contracts. They are looking for alternative sources of income, for extra employment, but many firms that employ people on zero-hours contracts state that the person must be available 24/7, so they cannot get alternative employment; they are stuck with it, even if it means an hour a week. If someone cannot make ends meet, wants to work, is not unemployed, being on a zero-hours contract, and is trying to do the best they can for their family, surely that is a cause of much anxiety. Imagine being in that situation. It causes health problems and then more problems along the line. Some on zero-hours contracts have no access to other forms of finance, not having contingency funds like other, more wealthy people further up the social ladder, so they find it very difficult. And because they have no guarantee of employment, they find it difficult to access legalised credit. This causes all sorts of social mayhem.

David Rutley: The hon. Gentleman makes his case with passion, but does he not agree that in sections of society zero-hours contracts are making an important contribution to the lives of people who value the flexibility they provide? I am keenly interested in this subject. From recent radio interviews and vox pop interviews, it seems to me that young people, in particular, really benefit from them. I understand that there are genuine concerns about instances of abuse, but for many people they provide a flexible way for them to pursue their career aspirations.

Ian Lavery: Of course, I understand that, but in reality, there are now more than 1 million people—probably a lot more—on zero-hours contracts, and the vast majority of them are being abused. It is not the other way around, as the Government seem to be suggesting. I have not met a single person—I kid you not—who wants a contract for no hours. People who want a contract want to work. That is the reality of it. The same as any MP, I have met many people, listened to their complaints and had the discussion in my surgeries, and I have not met anybody who wants a contract for zero hours. Why would anyone want such a contract? It is implausible. I cannot understand it.
	Obviously, zero-hours contracts suit some people on the basis that they will get employment for a week a month, but that is the few; the vast majority of people in the workplace on zero-hours contracts suffer greatly socially. These are people at the very bottom of the ladder and extremely desperate for employment. At times in my constituency, 28 people have been applying for each job. Those people would be delighted to have a zero-hours contract, if they thought they would get some employment, but zero-hours contracts take them off the unemployment register and basically massage the employment figures. There is an argument for outlawing, outright, zero-hours contracts. Government Members have said that there are some abuses, but I say we should get rid of the mass abuse and deal with the problem entirely.

Ian Murray: It is always a great delight to follow my good and hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who I tend to follow in these debates—he always gets taken last, although I am sure that can be dealt with in another place.
	This afternoon’s debate has added yet another dimension to the cost of living crisis that is engulfing the UK. It is not just the weekly shop, the energy bill or travel costs, but the hidden contributor of job insecurity. It is worth reminding ourselves that the UK had the third most flexible employment regime in the OECD even before this Government came to power and that there is a direct correlation between job insecurity, consumer confidence and economic growth. In fact, the Lib Dem Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), the former employment relations Minister, said that any changes to the employment regime that undermined consumer confidence and created job insecurity would be “crazy”. He later got the employment relations ministerial brief and proceeded to do exactly what he said he would not do.
	Many Members have discussed the plethora of other changes that have been made to the employment regime. It is worth reflecting on those changes, because they feed into the insecurity at work, which many hon. Members have mentioned, that is a symptom of zero-hours contracts. We have had—this is not an exclusive list, but gives an indication of why people feel more insecure at work—the qualification period increased to two years, collective redundancy cut to 45 days, fees for employment tribunals, the consequences of which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), compensated no-fault dismissal by the back door and settlement agreements. We have also had shares for rights, compensation and employment tribunals slashed, lay people taken off employment tribunals and employment appeal tribunals, TUPE regulations diluted—that is perhaps partly why the problem of zero-hours contracts has increased—the Agricultural Wages Board abolished, national minimum wage enforcement slashed, the very existence of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority questioned, and health and safety taken back to before the Boer war. That is a cocktail of job insecurity, which is highlighted by the fact that we are having this debate on zero-hours contracts.
	A lot of Members have talked about whether we should have done more in government. Many hon. Members have made that criticism, but it is a false
	criticism, because they are missing the explosion of zero-hours contracts in recent years and the underemployment that we are seeing across everyone’s constituency.
	Zero-hours contracts are not a new phenomenon—we have mentioned that already. They work for some employees—let us put that on the record; of course they do—but let us be clear, and say time and again, that the exploitative nature of such contracts has to be dealt with. That is what we need to do in the House today—and, indeed, in anything the Government bring forward. It is also not hard to see why zero-hours contracts are attractive to employers. They allow for maximum flexibility. However, in many cases, we are seeing the transfer of business risk—this is an important point—in a difficult economy from the employer to the employee. We should not hide behind the word “flexibility” so that it can mean exploitation.
	Let me highlight a couple of case studies. One employee of a cinema firm—I will not mention the firm involved—said:
	“I was offered part-time work with a zero-hours contract. It was all down to the whims of the managers whether or not you got work that week, which is just impossible to live with.”
	He continued:
	“They were very manipulative. And they employed so many people that we ended up getting about three hours a week. It seems as though zero-hours contracts are being used more and more to get as many staff as possible without any intention of using them…or giving us the hours we need to live and earn”
	the income we need to survive.
	Let us look at why the Government are so interested in zero-hours contracts and flexibility. Could it be because they have a flexible Cabinet? They have a part-time Chancellor. Indeed, I might even contest that the Business Secretary himself is on a zero-hours contract with the Liberal Democrats so that he can work full time for the Tories to deliver all these attacks on workers’ rights. Whether he likes it or not, that seems to be the case he is putting through. I wonder whether this issue also epitomises the kind of economy that this Government are looking to achieve—a low-wage, low-skilled, low-productivity work force that has insecure employment, to provide maximum flexibility and start a hire-and-fire culture. The Minister might come to the Dispatch Box and dispel that rumour, but it was only 24 hours ago that he suggested that small business should be exempt from any employment law whatever. If that is not creating a hire-and-fire culture, I do not know what is.
	Let us reflect on the Government’s response to this issue. Although I appreciate the tone of the Secretary of State’s earlier comments—many have mentioned that—the record is: three BIS officials working part time on this issue, “speaking informally” to stakeholders, with a consultation promised some time in November. The Business Secretary said he hoped it would start some time in November, and I hope that he will bring forward strong proposals.
	Many Members have spoken about issues in their constituencies and about what zero-hours contracts mean to their constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs Riordan) made a powerful contribution. She made the critical point that most employers in Halifax look after their staff. I think that the vast majority of employers leave home every day to go to work with the intention of looking after their staff so
	that they can have a productive work force. I was struck by my hon. Friend’s story of the young person who was desperate for a job and paid to travel to work, only to be told that his name was not on the list. He had to travel home again at his own expense.
	I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) is no longer in his place. He made a deplorable contribution, comparing people on zero-hours contracts with his zero-hours contract as a barrister. I hope that the Minister will agree that that is really not a true comparison with the problem we are looking at. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to complain about being on a zero-hours contract as a barrister—[Interruption.] Here he comes! Perhaps he was picking up his next £10,000-a-day contract while he was out of the Chamber.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) has always been a strong proponent of the arguments that we are putting forward today. He rightly concluded that zero-hours contracts needed to be used, but he also argued powerfully that, if major private sector employers such as Tesco, Morrisons and Sainsbury’s do not need to use them, others such as Wetherspoon’s and Burger King should not need to either. This is all about fairness in the workplace.

Guy Opperman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Murray: I will not give way, because the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber for the start of the winding-up speeches. Anyway, before he arrived, I might have said something particularly complimentary about him.

Guy Opperman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Murray: I will give way, as he is so insistent.

Guy Opperman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he not accept that, when someone is working for free, when they are obligated to take on work and have no choice in the matter and when they are contracted to carry out that employment, that is exactly the same as a zero-hours contract? That was the situation that I was in, and I regret to say that his allegation was wrong.

Ian Murray: The hon. Gentleman might be confusing self-employment with zero-hours contracts. It is particularly unfair for a Government Member to stand up and compare people on zero-hours contracts in the retail and home care sectors with those who work as barristers. That is not particularly helpful. It just shows how out of touch the Government are. I am sure that people watching this debate at home will draw their own conclusions from that, as many people in the Chamber have done.
	I want to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who, along with a number colleagues, has produced a fantastic pamphlet on this issue. I would encourage the Minister—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Hexham—to read it and to look at the case studies and the conclusions about what is happening in the labour market. She gave us a lesson today when she said that no one should tell their boss that they had done nothing, and they should instead say that they had not done
	enough. I am sure that that is a lesson we will all be taking to the Leader of the Opposition the next time we speak to him.
	The hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) has spoken in the Chamber about employment rights on a number of occasions since I have been in this post. His description of Burnley conjured up a utopian dream, and I might even move there myself. He seemed to suggest that zero-hours contracts were working wonderfully there, and that they offered the solution to all evils. His contribution on the way in which the contracts are affecting the people of Burnley was slightly strange, given that they are seen in many other constituencies as having precisely the opposite effect.
	The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) suggested that zero-hours contracts gave managers an excuse to be lazy about proper planning, and he was absolutely right. When I ran my own business, I spent an extraordinary amount of time creating rotas to ensure that every member of staff had the hours that they were contracted to do. That was a major part of running my own business, and if I was able to do it, I do not see why other organisations should not be able to do it too. Zero-hours contracts are bad for business. I spent a lot of time ensuring that people were paid properly, and were doing their contracted hours so that they could pay their rent or their mortgage, but premises not far from me that had 15 people on zero-hours contracts were taking on only eight or nine of them to work on any particular day. That lack of a level playing field makes the economy uncompetitive.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) led a marvellous debate in Westminster Hall just before the summer recess. Everybody talked in it about the devastation that these contracts can inflict on our constituencies, particularly in respect of mortgage and rental agreements. Instead of slashing employee rights and making it easier for employers to fire rather than hire, as this Government have done, we should be looking at putting together a framework to make people more secure at work, which would indeed help the economy.
	I ran out of having anything to note about the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). He is not in his place, so I shall not mention it any more.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) is a passionate advocate for her own constituency, and she reminded us all of the disgrace whereby the Red Cross has had to feed people through food banks—for the first time in this country in 70 years. If that is not an indictment of the current Government, showing how bad they are, I do not know what is. She posed the interesting question of why anyone would want to be in a zero-hours contract, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck said exactly the same thing. If someone has an employment contract, why would they want it to say zero hours? My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan also raised the issue of job progression—a subject we do not talk about enough. People on zero-hours contracts cannot get the skills, training and job progression up to the next level that they need.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham told us about his constituents’ fear of losing their job if they raised issues about these contracts. When people in the workplace are deciding whether to bring up such issues with their employers, their fear of doing so is widespread.
	My hon. Friend talked, too, about the demolition of people’s rights and the critical role of the partnership between trade unions and employers in this country. He reflected on the Secretary of State’s examples from the car industry, which show where that partnership has worked exceptionally well. The recent success of the car industry is testament to the workers, the trade unions, the Government and, indeed, the employers all working together to achieve it.
	The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) suggested no action, but said that the recent exploitation of these contracts is the real issue. We agree. There is no dispute between us on that—it is the exploitation rather than zero-hours contracts themselves that must be dealt with.
	My close neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), mentioned what is happening in the care sector in Edinburgh. I think we are all going to have to deal with this issue in future if people are to get the quality of care that they deserve.

Charlie Elphicke: rose—

Ian Murray: I do not have time. I need to conclude to allow the Minister to reply—[Interruption.] The Minister is allowing me to give way, so I will.

Charlie Elphicke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Unless it has escaped my attention, he has not mentioned the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), who was authentic on this matter, having attempted to highlight it over a long period. He chided the Opposition for a lack of action when they were in government. Does the shadow Minister accept those criticisms?

Ian Murray: I do not think my hon. Friend was criticising us for lack of action. His contribution was a powerful one about what should be happening across the whole of the labour market. We will work closely together on the solutions that need to be introduced. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition has already proposed some solutions.
	I forgot to mention that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East referred to text messaging as the new form of queuing up to find out whether there was work at the docks. We need to bear that in mind. I have seen examples of people finding out on mobile phones that there is “no work for you today”—a message sometimes sent only half an hour before the work was due to start. That cannot be viewed as acceptable.
	Commentators have spoken about exploitative uses of zero-hours contracts and the fact that they are a lazy option for businesses, but the Resolution Foundation also found that people on zero-hours contracts earned on average £6 an hour less, so the problem is not only lacking hours of work, but what happens when the hours are offered. Case law about the mutuality of obligation needs to be investigated further. When zero-hours contracts are exploited, there is no mutuality of obligation when people go for work and when they have been given work. We need that issue to be dealt with clearly.
	Let us return to what the Leader of the Opposition announced last month, which covers some of the issues raised about banning exploitative use rather than zero-hours contracts themselves. My right hon. Friend rightly spoke about banning employers from insisting that those on
	zero-hours contracts are available, even when there is no guarantee of any work; stopping these contracts that require workers to work exclusively for one firm, which the Secretary of State mentioned; ending the misuse of zero-hours contracts where employees are in practice working regular hours over a sustained period; and putting in place a code of practice that will allow people to use these contracts properly.
	The cost-of-living crisis engulfing this country is made worse by insecurity in the job market. That crisis can be tackled only by ensuring that people are secure in their employment and are paid a proper wage for a proper day’s work. I hope that Members will support our motion.

Michael Fallon: May I thank the many Members who have spoken in this debate, which has been good natured? There have been a number of passionate speeches. Those who have contributed fall into two groups. There are clearly those who want to squeeze out flexible-hour contracts altogether: the hon. Members for Halifax (Mrs Riordan), for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). There are others who have taken a more nuanced approach. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) who said that we needed to be neither for nor against flexible-hour contracts, but that we needed to deal with the exploitation. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) welcomed the consultation that we are planning, but asked, quite fairly, whether it would encompass the wider issues of shorter hours and agency working. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) for the work that she has done on this matter, and she said that she was willing to engage with the Government’s consultation. She has accepted that the sample that she has produced so far is relatively limited, but we are very happy to look at her work, and I welcome her offer to engage with the Government on it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) made some strong points on the issue of exclusivity. I can absolutely undertake to him that that will be central to our consultation. He also made the point convincingly that we should not unduly restrict choice where that choice is being freely entered into.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) spoke of the importance of retaining flexibility in the modern business environment and adduced powerful support for flexible-hour contracts from a range of business and personnel organisations. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) was the only Member who spoke in the debate to point to the latest employment and unemployment figures, and I am rather surprised that no Opposition Member today was able to recognise the continuing increase in the number of people working, whether in the north-east or the south-east. It is a shame that more Members did not give due credit to the increase in employment.

Lisa Nandy: I do not recognise anything of what the Minister has said so far. If he had listened to the debate, perhaps he would be in a better position to respond to
	some of the very important points made by my hon. Friends and by a few Members on the other side of the House.

Michael Fallon: I have been here throughout the debate and have listened to every speech since about a quarter to 1 this afternoon. I certainly listened to the hon. Lady’s speech, which was a very good one. I am simply pointing out the difference between those hon. Members who want to get rid of flexible-hour contracts altogether, and others who can see their value and want to preserve the choice so that those who are happy to choose them are able to do so.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) drew attention to the issue of eligibility for mortgages and rental tenancies for those who are on such contracts. It is important that we look at that aspect. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) raised the issue of the application of flexible-hour contracts in the care industry, and spoke about the number of such services that have been contracted out. However, a great number of councils up and down the country, and not just subcontracted firms, are using flexible-hour contracts: Doncaster, Southwark and Liverpool, for example. The issue is not simply one for privatised contracted labour.

Alison McGovern: The Minister said that he was disappointed that no one had mentioned the unemployment figures. In fact, in an earlier intervention I drew attention to the relationship between zero-hours contracts and the under-employment that they represent, and what is happening to the claimant count. Does the Minister feel that we need to investigate the issue, and does he feel that that under-employment is serious and should be viewed alongside the falling claimant count?

Michael Fallon: I shall be happy to consider the hon. Lady’s point about under-employment if she will recognise the considerable progress that the Government have made in increasing the total number of people in work since 2010.
	Concerns have been expressed about the way in which these contracts work, which is why the Government have listened and decided to act. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we will shortly launch a consultation and seek views on the issues that are causing concern—issues such as transparency in contracts and the availability of information, advice and guidance to ensure that individuals are aware of their rights and companies are aware of their obligations to provide, for instance, holiday pay, sick pay, redundancy pay and travelling time payments. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, we will also seek views on the issue of exclusivity in the employment contract.
	However, while it is right to consider all those issues, we also need to ensure that the flexibility afforded by contracts of this kind to both businesses and individuals is still available. A flexible and dynamic labour market is essential to facilitate growth in our economy, and to give businesses that want to expand the opportunity to do so.
	As there is no single definition of a variable-hours contract, we must proceed with caution when considering the action that we might take to ensure that there are no
	unintended consequences. We must consider all the employment arrangements that could fall within the definition, such as work through agencies, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. We must also ensure that we do not act in haste.
	We cannot accept the motion, because it prejudges the consultation in calling for a ban, and calls for evidence that we have already begun to assemble. I should add, however, that some of my hon. Friends suggested that the last Labour Government had done nothing about this matter during their 13 years in office. That is not wholly true. On the contrary, the last Labour Government looked at the issue—and then did nothing. They published a White Paper entitled “Fairness at Work”, which discussed variable-hours contracts, and concluded:
	“The Government wishes to retain the flexibility these contracts offer business”.
	A couple of years after the White Paper, the then Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), said:
	“The Government consider that zero hours contracts can contribute to the flexibility necessary for a modern labour market”.—[Official Report, 2 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 344W.]
	Unlike the last Labour Government, we will act. We will hold a full consultation. We will consider important issues such as restrictive exclusivity and the alleged lack of transparency.
	Today we have heard Opposition Members express indignation about a flexibility that they themselves endorsed in government, and we have heard them speak of an alleged abuse about which they did nothing in government. No one wants people to be exploited; no one wants people to be tied to contracts that are unnecessarily restrictive, and in which there is no genuine transparency. This Government are acting, whereas the last Government failed to do so.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 244, Noes 298.

Question accordingly negatived.

Speaker’s Statement

Mr Speaker: Before we proceed to the next Opposition day debate, I am now in a position to announce the result of the election of a Deputy Speaker, following the ballot held today.
	Five hundred and fifty-one votes were cast, with no spoilt ballot papers. The counting went to six stages. Five hundred and thirteen valid votes were cast in that round, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 257 votes. The person elected First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means with 273 votes is Mrs Eleanor Laing. The other candidate in that round was Mr Brian Binley, who received 240 votes.
	Eleanor Laing will take up her post immediately. I congratulate the hon. Lady warmly and I may say on behalf of my colleagues and myself that we all greatly look forward to working with her. In the process I should like, on behalf, I am sure, of the whole House, to thank all the candidates for participating in this election and for a contest which showed the House at its best.

Tom Brake: rose—

Eleanor Laing: rose—

Mr Speaker: In a moment—I am saving the hon. Lady up.
	The results under the single transferable vote system will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and published on both the intranet and the internet for public viewing. Let us hear first from the hon. Lady.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Eleanor Laing: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I welcome the announcement you have just made? I thank the Clerks and Officers of the House for the way they conducted today’s election, and for doing it so swiftly. I would like, on behalf of all the candidates who took part, to thank each of the other candidates for the demure and pleasant way the election was conducted. I thank the House for placing its confidence in me to let me become part of your team. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: I appreciate the hon. Lady’s typically gracious words. What she said by way of tribute to the staff of the House, who are always exemplary in professionalism, discretion and efficiency, will have been noted, in particular.

Tom Brake: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope that it is in order to congratulate the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) on behalf of the Government on her election as Deputy Speaker. I wish her every success in that post.

Angela Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to echo the comments of the Deputy Leader of the House. The hon. Member for Epping Forest has a strong record in political and constitutional reform and will make a very good Deputy Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Thank you.

High Streets

[Relevant documents:Uncorrected transcripts of oral evidence taken before the Communities and Local GovernmentCommittee on 17 June 2013, HC 309-i, and 2 September 2013, HC 612-i.]

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I beg to move,
	That this House recognises that high streets and town and city centres are vital to local economies; acknowledges that many small businesses and retailers are struggling under the pressure of business rates rises; notes that since 2010 shop vacancy rates have remained at over 14 per cent but that there has been a 20 per cent increase in numbers of payday loan shops and a three per cent increase in numbers of betting shops in the last year; is concerned that recent changes to permitted development rights and use classes are likely to lead to an over-concentration of betting shops and payday loan companies in many areas, against the wishes of local people and businesses; and calls on the Government to give local communities a greater say over the shape of their own high streets and town and city centres, including control over use classes, to help encourage the more widespread use of neighbourhood planning and greater cooperation between local communities and businesses and to cut and then freeze business rates from 2015 to help small businesses on UK high streets and town and city centres.
	When introducing the Portas pilots a few years ago, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), with his customary understatement and modesty, said that
	“these pilots can be the vanguard of a high street revolution, and others can look to their example to kick start a renaissance of our town centres.”
	However, recent data show us that this high street revolution has yet to materialise. I think it is wrong to place the blame at the door of Mary Portas, because there was much in her original report that was helpful. I want to place the blame for such poor progress in reviving our high streets firmly where it belongs: with the Government.
	The Government’s failed policies for the high street undoubtedly start with the sluggishness of our economic recovery, but I want to focus specifically on what is wrong with their approach to regenerating our high streets and town centres. The past five years have seen a significant squeeze on household and personal incomes, resulting in muted spending and an increase in retail failures. The high street has not only been hit by falling living standards but has had to contend with the rise in internet shopping. Yes, shopping habits are changing, but the high streets and town centres are still very important to the well-being of our communities, yet the Government’s policies are not rising to the challenge of revitalising and regenerating them.

David Burrowes: The hon. Lady starts her speech with a blame game. Would she attribute any blame to Labour’s Licensing Act 2003, which caused a culture of binge-drinking on the streets? Does she see that as in any way revitalising and adding a positive contribution to our high streets?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: The hon. Gentleman ought to look to see what his Government’s policies are doing in terms of the rising number of payday loan companies and betting shops on our high streets.

Marcus Jones: The hon. Lady mentions the over-proliferation of betting shops. Surely the Labour Government’s Licensing Act made that worse with the changes they made to the number of machines that could be put in each shop. Because of her Government’s policy, the national chains are now putting several branches on the same high street.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: In fact, the reason for the increased number of payday loan companies is, first, what has been happening to the economy, and secondly, the change in use class orders, to which I will turn in a few moments.
	Local shops and retailers are really feeling the squeeze on the high street, and these are still tough times for many areas.

Henry Smith: Will the hon. Lady join me in congratulating Crawley borough council and West Sussex county council, which are, as we speak, significantly regenerating Crawley high street?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Of course we would welcome any regeneration that is happening on our high streets.
	Business rates are rising by an average of nearly £2,000 during this Parliament, and more than one in 10 small businesses say that they spend the same or more on business rates as they do on rent. However, we must ask this question: is it all doom and gloom?

Alex Cunningham: Our historic high street in Stockton-on-Tees has suffered, like others, but our council has acted by developing what it calls the enterprise arcade, which gives fledgling businesses the opportunity to develop and then move into shop units. Yet we are seeing more betting shops and payday loan companies taking up space in our high street. Does my hon. Friend agree that those fledgling businesses should be given priority over betting shops and others so that they can provide the shops our high street needs?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I absolutely agree. Indeed, we are arguing that local authorities should be given more powers over what happens in their high streets so that they are able to shape their direction in certain areas.

Christopher Pincher: Is the hon. Lady aware that the number of betting shops has reduced slightly in the past 12 months, and that 9,000 betting shops on the high streets is 7,000 fewer than there were in the 1970s? Will she not accept that over the long term the number of betting shops has fallen?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the fact that regionally the number varies massively. There has certainly been a huge increase in the number of betting shops in several areas in the past 12 months.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is making a very compelling argument for giving local councils the power to determine how their high streets develop. One measure that we could introduce is umbrella provisions to enable local councils to stop the clustering of payday lenders or betting shops on the high street.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Indeed. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I will expand on it later.

Bill Esterson: To return to the question of whether there has been an increase in the number of betting shops, I am concerned about the high number of gambling adverts during TV programmes. I watched the football last night and there were three of those adverts during one commercial break alone. Does my hon. Friend agree that such encouragement of gambling must be linked to the impact on the high street?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: That is undoubtedly one reason why the number of gambling operations on our high street is increasing, but I do not think it is the only reason.

Mark Pawsey: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I make some progress. I will let him intervene later.
	We know from information recently produced by the Local Data Company that there has been an improvement in occupancy rates. That is a good thing, but before Government Members get too excited I must point out that the vacancy rate has fallen from 14.2% to 14.1%, so one in seven shops are still standing empty, which is hardly a cause for celebration. That average figure also hides some large regional disparities. For example, Blackburn has a huge vacancy rate of 26.9%, with one in four shops lying empty.
	The report also shows that in some areas vacancy rates remain stubbornly high. Since August 2010, the national average for empty shops has been above 14%, with a significant number being long-term sick with little or no prospect of being reoccupied as shops. Areas of improvement undoubtedly exist, but overall the recovery on our high streets leaves much to be desired.
	The Government have responded to this major problem in their usual way: they have taken a piecemeal approach, fragmented the response and, when all else has failed, blamed the planning system. We now have a plethora of initiatives intent on improving the high street: Portas pilots, town team partners, the future high streets forum, a high street innovation fund, the high street renewal award and a fund for business improvement districts.

Mark Pawsey: On vacancy rates and betting shops, given the choice would the hon. Lady rather see a unit occupied by a betting shop or left vacant as a hole in the high street?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: The hon. Gentleman needs to consider the fact that too many shops of a particular type crowd out other shops that might be more desirable.

Steve Rotheram: Does my hon. Friend agree that a distinct contrast can be drawn between Kings road in Chelsea and County road in Liverpool, Walton, which has experienced a proliferation of betting shops, payday loan companies, fast-food takeaways and pawnbrokers? The Government cannot wash their hands of this—the rise has been exponential and that has partly been down to their policies.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must highlight where the Government’s policies on the high street have failed.
	There is a long list of initiatives, but the fragmented approach masks the lack of an overall strategic approach that would bring together local authorities, key stakeholders and communities to plan for and deliver real change in their town centres.

Richard Fuller: Before the hon. Lady moves on to her socialist selection of which stores it is right for people to purchase from, will she admit that the Government’s employment allowance, which will be introduced in 2015 and will reduce the cost of hiring people to work in shops, is a very welcome step in getting started the sorts of shops that people want to purchase from?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: It is very important to have a localist approach that encourages local people to get involved in shaping their high street. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman supported such an approach before all the changes that have been made over the past couple of years.
	We want key stakeholders and communities to be brought together to plan and deliver change in their town centres. It is a pity that the Minister was not at the Local Data Company summit this morning, because he would have heard people saying that that was exactly what they wanted.
	In his recent report, Bill Grimsey gave the Government some much-needed helpful advice. I will briefly highlight a few of his recommendations. He said that the Government should:
	“Set an objective to repopulate high streets and town centres as community hubs encompassing: more housing, education, arts, entertainment, business/office space, health and leisure—and some shops”,
	and
	“Establish a Town Centre Commission for each town with a defined skill base and structure to build a 20-year vision for each town”.
	He went on to say that they should establish five pilots to trial that immediately and called on the Government to
	“Prepare for a ‘wired town’ vision or ‘networked high streets’”,
	to review business rates and to require the owners of empty properties to seek a change of use class to bring properties back into occupation.

Marcus Jones: The hon. Lady is setting great store by the Grimsey report. She has spoken about making it easier to change use classes and to convert commercial property into residential property. However, her motion argues against that. How does she square that circle?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: If the hon. Gentleman had read the motion more carefully, he would have seen that we are arguing that local authorities, in consultation with their communities, should be able to shape use classes in their area. We do not think that use classes should be got rid of altogether, which is what his Government are seeking to do.

Simon Hughes: I must express concern about a motion that calls on the Government to
	“give communities a greater say over the shape of their”
	communities when, unless I have misunderstood something, this Parliament recently passed the Localism Act 2011, which was initiated by this Government, as a result of which business improvement districts are being created and neighbourhood plans formulated all over my constituency. The hon. Lady clearly was not here for those debates and has not noticed what is happening in communities across England.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: It is the right hon. Gentleman who has not noticed what is happening, particularly with regard to use class orders. The power for local communities to shape their high streets is being taken away.
	A steer from Government is required to enable local authorities, stakeholders and communities to get together and pool their resources to shape their high streets. One huge stumbling block to the Grimsey approach remains. While many of us have been arguing for greater powers to assist local communities in shaping their areas, the Government have been busy giving away the powers that do exist to provide for that. In May, the Government legislated to allow changes to use classes so that virtually any class of commercial premises on the high street can become any kind of shop, fast food restaurant or shop in the euphemistically named “financial and professional services sector”, which alongside banks and estate agents includes payday lenders or legal loan sharks and betting shops.
	I hope the Minister can tell us what was going through the Government’s mind when they decided that what struggling high streets needed was for it to be made easier for more bookies and payday loan companies to be sprawled across them. I would like to hear the rationale for that decision, because my previous attempts to elicit a response from the Government have failed. Nationally, there are 20% more payday loan shops and 3% more betting shops than there were a year ago.

David Lammy: I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend, but does she agree it was extraordinary that the coalition Government opposed my amendment to the Localism Bill, which would have made betting shops a sui generis class under our planning laws, and brought an end to the travesty that is taking place across our high streets?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, and it is a shame the Government did not accept his amendment. We must keep pressing them to change direction, particularly from where they are attempting to go at the moment, which is complete deregulation.
	There are 20% more payday loan shops and 3% more betting shops than a year ago, and I do not think there is huge clamour out there in our communities for any more. Indeed, people want the opposite; they want fewer of those shops because they are taking the place of independent retailers, clothes shops and health food shops.

Andrew Gwynne: Is the real point that the growth in payday lenders, bookmakers and takeaways is reducing the vitality and vibrancy of the high street, meaning that fewer shoppers want to go and shop in the retail outlets that remain?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: My hon. Friend is right. We know that once there is a proliferation of payday loan companies and the like on our high streets, other retailers are put off coming to the area.

Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend said there is no clamour out there in the country for more betting shops, fast food takeaways and payday loan companies, but there is a clamour for communities and planning authorities to have more control over these changes. Does she agree that the recent changes make a complete mockery of the rhetoric coming from the Government about giving more power to communities? It is simply not true.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend, and what we are currently seeing from the Government is very anti-localist; it is the opposite of what they say they are doing.

Marcus Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I will make some progress. There are now more than twice as many betting shops on British high streets as all the cinemas, bingo halls, museums, bowling alleys, arcades, galleries and snooker halls combined. I am sure the owners of payday loan companies were jumping for joy when they learned that this year they could accelerate the growth of their businesses without even having to ask for a change of use for the buildings they intend to occupy. The policy is so disastrous that I am not sure who the Government think it will help. It will certainly not help independent start-ups, which are still hampered—as we know—by the lack of available credit.
	As if the changes announced in May were not bad enough, the Government have just completed consultation on another round of relaxations to permitted development and change of use classes that would see banks become flats, post offices become residences, and any small shop turned into a house without the local authority or community having a say in whether those changes are appropriate or of sufficient quality.
	London local councils recently produced a report that stated:
	“The removal of boroughs’ ability to require planning permission for these types of use change is likely to have a detrimental rather than positive impact on local economic growth. And whilst there is a recognition that some previously commercial areas in and around high streets are no longer viable for business, the ability for these to become residential should be left to the discretion of the local planning authority and not national policy.”
	We entirely agree. We are not against the principle of changes from office to residential; we are for the principle of local communities deciding what is best for their area, not Ministers in Whitehall.

Kerry McCarthy: I have been contacted by the owners of the Exchange, a music venue in Bristol—it is in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams). They took out new premises in a commercial area of Bristol, but have found out that there are plans to convert neighbouring properties into residential properties. They will therefore get noise complaints. They are concerned
	that, having invested in the new venture, they could be put out of business. Is that an example of what my hon. Friend describes?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I thank my hon. Friend for giving us that example, which clearly demonstrates what is wrong with the Government’s approach. I hope the Minister has heard it.
	I should tell the Minister that the Opposition are not against change to use classes, but the Government are entirely misguided in seeking to introduce a national permitted development right that will bypass local decision making and give communities no say in what ends up on their high streets.

Andrew Griffiths: On the Channel 4 “Dispatches” programme in August last year, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), said that the Gambling Act 2005 was a “mistake”, that the consequences
	“are ruining the high street and people’s lives”
	and that “we were wrong”. Do you agree?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: The hon. Gentleman should pay more attention to what is happening to changes in use class resulting in more gambling outlets on his high street.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Obviously, I did not agree either.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	The Government’s approach is entirely the wrong one and profoundly anti-localist. It is therefore strange that they seek to badge the changes as indicating that they are absolutely committed to enabling individuals and community groups to have a greater say over every aspect of their area, including their high streets. I can only conclude that that is some sort of Orwellian misspeak.
	What would Labour do? First, it would allow local authorities to put some types of businesses into a separate use class or use classes to prevent over-saturation of a particular use type in a given area—betting shops, for example. We know that some in the Government agree. At the Liberal Democrat conference this year, the Comptroller of Her Majesty’s Household, the then Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, moved a motion saying that local councillors should be
	“empowered to decide whether or not to give approval to additional gambling venues in their community”,
	and he called on Liberal Democrats in the Government to push for betting shops to be put in a new separate planning use class
	“allowing local authority planning committees to control them”.
	The motion was passed, so no wonder he was reshuffled. The Government have done exactly the opposite.
	Local councils also agree with the Opposition. A recent report from all 32 London boroughs said that town centres and high streets were at risk of not meeting the needs of local residents because planning regulations restrict the powers of local councils to encourage balanced local economies, including a lack of control on the spread of shops such as pawnbrokers and bookmakers.
	The councils recommended that such shops should be removed from use class A2 to a sui generis class of their own. The House should note that local authorities did not ask for further deregulation of that use class, which the Government propose to give them.
	Secondly, Labour would give local authorities powers to determine permitted development locally in keeping with local needs and aspirations. Thirdly, Labour would strengthen neighbourhood planning and consider retail diversity schemes to allow communities to shape their high street. Fourthly, as announced at conference by the Labour leader, a Labour Government would cut business rates for small businesses if elected in 2015 and freeze them the year after, helping 1.5 million small businesses, many of which are on our high streets.

Jamie Reed: Does my hon. Friend share my view that in areas of market failure, particularly across the north of England, the situation is acute, and that, in the face of swingeing cuts to council grants to the point where they are in some cases unsustainable, we must do all we can to grow indigenous businesses to keep communities afloat?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Absolutely. The small business sector is essential to the health of our communities, including our high streets.

John Pugh: Does the hon. Lady favour showing specific discretion to business rates for retail property, as opposed to small businesses in general?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The debate has been going for nearly 30 minutes and I am concerned about the number of speakers.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I will move on as quickly as I can, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	In response to the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), the announcement was to cut business rates if elected in 2015 and freeze them for the year after that. In the context of that announcement, the Government’s plans to fiddle with red tape and postpone the business rate re-evaluation just do not cut it. We will start discussions with local authorities to see which of the Grimsey proposals can be taken forward to begin to deliver real change on the high street.
	Finally, we want to put local communities at the centre of decision making with regard to what happens in their high street, so they can determine a vision for it and deliver to local needs and aspirations.

Jason McCartney: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I need to carry on, as we are running out of time.
	Above all, we must remain hopeful that our high streets can be vibrant community hubs, and this is entirely possible if local communities are given the right freedoms. Local people are best placed to decide the kind of high street they want for them and their families to live, socialise and shop in. Writing in The Observer last week, Lauren Laverne reminded us that our high streets provide places of real escape, and as long as they do they remain more than a metonym and are places
	definitely worth saving. I doubt if the Minister reads her weekly column, but he should. He should listen to her and he should listen to us, too.

Brandon Lewis: High streets are far more than shop windows to the retail industry. They have moved far beyond just being a retail hub. They are the heartbeat of our towns and cities and have always been the lynchpin of our communities. With that in mind, I was disappointed if not surprised to hear the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) reduce the issue to Labour wanting more regulation, more borrowing and higher taxes while, in one fell swoop, managing to destroy local government finance post-2015.

Jamie Reed: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that high streets are about civic identity and elements of civic society. Does he think that the closure of NHS walk-in centres, police stations, courts and more in our high streets is helping or hindering them?

Brandon Lewis: Our high streets benefit from wider community access, whether that includes fire stations, the police, children’s centres, the NHS, retail, leisure or hospitality. The hon. Member for City of Durham says she wants the town centre to be the heart of the community and a real community hub. I applaud that. I am just not quite sure how, in the same speech, she managed to argue against that by proposing to ban conversion to residential, which brings more people to our high streets. The hon. Gentleman is right: people care deeply about their high streets because they are the centres of their community. We want to see vibrant, viable high streets where people live, shop, use services, and spend their leisure time, and that includes a safe night-time economy.

Jason McCartney: Will the Minister join me in saying how disappointing it was that the shadow Minister had nothing to say about car parking charges in the centres of our small towns? Labour-run Kirklees council still imposes inflexible car parking charges in Holmfirth, which is a small market town. No wonder shoppers go to Morrisons two miles down the road, where they can park for free. Will he encourage Labour-run Kirklees to be more flexible and have more supportive car parking charges?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a very good point; councils should look closely at their car parking charges, not least because, as they will know if they have any real business sense—I would hope that even a Labour council would seriously consider its future financing opportunities—successful high streets will drive business rates retention. However, for that they need footfall and for footfall all the evidence shows we need easy, cheap car parking.
	I will take no lectures from Labour on our high streets.

Alex Cunningham: Stockton boasts the widest high street in England, and a major project to rejuvenate it is under way, thanks to a Labour local authority. Many organisations are involved, but the Post Office has
	opted to walk away from our high street, downgrading the service and burying it at the back of another shop. Does the Minister agree that the Post Office should be a partner in our high streets, instead of walking away?

Brandon Lewis: I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to be more persuasive about what is right for his community. In a range of communities, the Post Office is investing in high streets, including in mine in Great Yarmouth.
	I will remind the House of Labour’s record on the high streets. It introduced 24-hour drinking laws. Its campaign in the 2001 election actually said:
	“Couldn’t give a XXXX for last orders? Vote Labour on Thursday for extra time”.
	It then gave our town centres a Jekyll and Hyde personality—quiet by day, often nasty and brutish by night—whereas this coalition Government have given more powers to councils to rein in the excesses of the late-night, vertical drinking establishments, while supporting well run, popular and safe community pubs. Labour pushed through the Gambling Act 2005—I am pleased to see the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who took it through the House, here today—leading to a rise in uncontrolled gaming, including addictive fixed odds betting terminals.

Bill Esterson: Government Members jumped up and down defending bookmakers earlier, but does the Minister agree that encouraging more bookies, which is what the legislative changes do, will put people off going to the high street and that those who visit the bookies only spend their money in the bookies and do not go to the other retailers?

Brandon Lewis: I do not think the evidence entirely backs that up, but I will let the hon. Gentleman discuss that with his right hon. Friend, who brought in the Act that created a lot of the problems. Online gambling, which the hon. Gentleman spoke about earlier, is part of what takes people away from the high street. I was disappointed to hear Opposition Members lambast some good, strong small businesses employing people and bringing money into our economy, including some of the fast food outlets, which are a phenomenally important part of the high street.
	The deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), has since admitted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) said:
	“I think we were wrong, we have made a mistake... it’s ruining people’s lives.”

David Lammy: Then do something about it.

Angie Bray: I would not subscribe to the socialist vision for our high streets of allowing politicians and bureaucrats to decide what is suitable for them, but constituents of mine have expressed their concerns about the plethora of bookies. I wonder whether we should be unpicking some of the damage done by the previous Government’s Gambling Act and introducing a concept of saturation, which could be taken into account when the Gambling Commission makes licensing decisions.

Brandon Lewis: Councils have the power of article 4, but there is a wider issue about ensuring that our town centres are vibrant places that businesses want to be in, so that they are filled with the kind of retail, hospitality and leisure industries that consumers and residents want.
	In response to the sedentary intervention just now from the right hon. Member for Tottenham, we are reviewing betting machines and have given our full support to councils, such as Labour-run Barking, to use their existing envelope of planning powers to tackle the community impact of betting shops.

David Lammy: Does the Minister accept that London councils are saying that it costs a lot of money to use article 4 planning powers and that they should be spending their money on the public, not on lawyers?

Brandon Lewis: The simple answer is no. Those authorities are wrong: it simply does not. They need to go back and think much harder about changing their offer and doing what they believe is right for their communities. If that means using article 4, it is there for them to use.

John Redwood: Given the impact of the internet on shopping habits, does the Minister agree that councils have to work with their local town centres to maximise their use, which would include office use and leisure use, as well as shopping use?

Brandon Lewis: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I agree and will come to that in a few moments.
	Labour made it more difficult to park in town centres—my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) has mentioned that point—with Whitehall guidance issued by John Prescott telling councils to cut the number of parking spaces, increase parking charges and hit drivers with fines. In 2008, the local government Minister, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), complained that councils were not using parking charges to their “full potential”. By the end of Labour’s time in office, 9 million parking fines a year were issued in England. What was the public’s response? Quite sensibly, they are taking their time to shop online or drive to out-of-town stores where they are not penalised for using their cars. That was Labour’s response to changing lifestyles and the internet—to make it as difficult as possible for people to shop in and visit our town centres.

Simon Danczuk: Does the Minister not accept that the elephant in the room is not the Secretary of State and his views on car parking, but business rates rapidly increasing and damaging small businesses?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Can we try to be a little more courteous to Members in all parts of the House?

Brandon Lewis: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will come to business rates in a moment, but when I talk to retailers, there are two key issues, one of which is how we get more footfall into town centres, and there is no getting away from the fact that parking has a key part to play in that.
	As the hon. Member for City of Durham rightly said, the internet is not just a creative technology; it is changing retail dramatically. The fall of some retailers—household names that we all knew well, such as Blockbuster and the old HMV—was down to weaknesses in their business models and an inability to keep up with the pace of change. They struggled to adapt to modern behaviour and could not compete with the rise of the new online retailers, which now make up almost 15% of the market—a figure that experts say will rise exponentially. High streets have changed and must continue to do so. The best retailers and the best high streets and town centres are already looking at how they can and should adapt to become places where people live, shop, use services and spend their leisure time, but there are no quick and easy solutions. As hon. Members will know, that will take time.

Neil Carmichael: The Minister is making some excellent points. We need more diverse, innovative high streets. Does he agree that it might be a good idea to encourage colleges to open employment shops on high streets for young people?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a good point. In fact, on Monday I was in Bedford seeing how the town has integrated the educational establishments into the town centre. That is a good example of how to bring the whole community together.

Richard Fuller: As the proud Member for Bedford, may I thank the Minister for visiting the town on Monday with Mary Portas? She said three important things: that Bedford is a beautiful town, which it is, that we have a glorious river, which we do, and that the best way for towns to work is for the community to work together on its future, which we are. Does the Minister agree with those three points?

Brandon Lewis: It was clear on Monday how proud of Bedford the team rightly are. They have done some great work, and it was a wonderful place to visit and to see some of it.
	Given the time, I want to make a bit of progress. Some recent research suggests that the vacancy rates on high streets are beginning to plateau, after about 20 years of decline. If that is true, we should celebrate that—and celebrate the great British high street—but we must also look to do more. The coalition Government are committed to helping communities to adapt. We believe that plans and ideas for town centres must come from local areas themselves. It is for councils, businesses and communities to decide what their high streets and town centres will look like. Government cannot and should not look to bail out or prop up ailing high street businesses with taxpayers’ money, nor should we just introduce new taxes—as has been suggested by the Opposition—to create a level playing field of misery. Higher taxes destroy jobs and undermine enterprise. Government must support local people, building skills and spreading best practice.

Mark Pawsey: Does the Minister agree that one way in which a community can effectively defend its town centre is to take a more positive attitude towards new housing development, which provides additional consumers for the shops in the centre of town?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a superb point about how we can improve footfall in our town centres by being flexible enough to allow people to live nearer to them and in and around them.
	The Government are looking at building skills and spreading best practice, as well as doing everything we can at national level to support high street growth. That is why we invited Mary Portas, who has championed the British high street, to review the future of the nation’s high streets. She has done a phenomenal job of raising the profile of that issue around the country over the past few years. We took action following her review, providing communities with the means to establish Portas pilots and town teams across the country to test different approaches. We have put in place 27 Portas pilots and more that 350 town team partners, with funding and a defined support package for each of them.
	Over the past year, the Government have worked closely with the Association of Town and City Management and with Business in the Community to support the Portas pilots and the town teams. The ATCM is making use of a £1 million fund to provide practical assistance to improve leadership, town team capabilities and partnership working, and to share learning and spread best practice. Business in the Community has set up a high street champions programme to give dedicated support to the Portas pilots on business engagement and mentoring. Businesses with a commitment to town centres provide support and encouragement to Portas pilots to help them to achieve their objectives.
	The high street champions are working with their town teams to deliver positive change in their towns, and a lot has been achieved by the pilots and town teams. For example, Market Rasen has built a market from scratch, which earlier this year won a prestigious award for being Britain’s best small speciality market. Dartford has introduced Sunday trading with free parking and subsidised advertising. Stockton has launched a discounted business rates scheme for businesses that take over a vacant shop in the town centre. That is something that councils now have the power to do, thanks to this Government. Ipswich has a brave, large-scale master plan to reorient its high street so that it runs from east to west instead of from north to south. It is making the most of its assets to transform its existing town centre and its waterfront. A variety of mixed and leisure uses have been approved, and that has attracted further investment and created new employment opportunities. Those are just a handful of examples; there are many more great pieces of work being done around the country.

Jamie Reed: I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is being generous with his time and it is appreciated. Will he tell me what specific support the Government are giving or intending to give to communities in areas of market failure that are being particularly affected by the public spending cuts that we have seen since 2010?

Brandon Lewis: As I have just said, councils and communities must look at what they can do. For example, councils could use powers to alter business rates, which the previous Government did not allow them to have. They could also do more in relation to parking. I will outline some more specific points in a moment.
	Earlier this year, we established the future high streets forum, which brings together leaders from retail, property, academia, hospitality and local government. They include sector experts from organisations such as Boots, Costa Coffee, John Lewis and the Post Office. The forum is taking forward important work, looking at local leadership, at the barriers to and enablers of success, and at what the future high street will look like.

Simon Hughes: The Government have taken loads of really good initiatives, and the Minister is right to put them before the House today. It is also clear that some of Labour’s criticisms about gaming issues are completely misconceived, given that it was the Labour Government’s legislation that caused the problem. I supported the motion on reviewing use orders that was passed at our conference, and I hope that the Government will look seriously at the question of use orders in relation to betting establishments—

Roberta Blackman-Woods: That is what the motion is all about.

Simon Hughes: It is not what the motion is all about; it is one of the points in the motion. I am asking the Government to look into the question.

Brandon Lewis: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He will appreciate that, at the moment, the Government are not looking to create more regulation on the high street.

Andrew Griffiths: The Minister has mentioned the hospitality and leisure sectors on a number of occasions. He will know, through his magnificent work as the pubs Minister, the importance of the community pub. Does he agree that the night-time economy and the leisure sector play a massive role in revitalising our high streets and in providing jobs and opportunities for young people?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is important that we look at what a community needs and wants. Our high streets are changing into places where people go for a day out or a night out. While they are there, they might do some shopping, have something to eat, or go to a bar, a club or the local community pub. It is important to embrace that and not to try to have what can be inferred from earlier: some sort of socialist or Marxist control from the centre of what the high street can or cannot have or of what we should facilitate in our high streets. The consumer and the customer will drive what the businesses want to provide. That is how to get a high street that serves its customers.

Brian Binley: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although pubs are very important to our town centres and communities, they do not need to stay open until 4 o’clock in the morning to serve that purpose?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend has made that point on a range of occasions. It is an issue on which the authorities will have to decide in each individual case when they look at the licensing.
	The sector specialists are putting their own time and expertise into this project; they are the ones best placed, with the best experience and knowledge of the market, to support and advise us and others on the programme of work. We are helping local people to adapt their high streets, making available new tools and powers. Through the planning system, we are removing barriers and we have set out a “town centre first” policy in the national planning policy framework. We want to see more people living in and near their town centres to make them more vibrant, but also to increase footfall. That could include bringing in housing or other business uses alongside the traditional retail offer.
	In May, we introduced measures that allow property owners to take advantage of new rights for temporary changes of use. Those measures have been well received by developers. A recent survey of just 15% of councils by Planning magazine showed that there have been 262 prior approval applications for change of use from offices to residential in the first two to three months. That includes a number of applications to create over 100 new dwellings. The Labour party opposes those reforms, yet also opposes brownfield regeneration—providing badly needed new homes at no cost to the taxpayer. If the Labour party does not want more homes in our towns and cities, where should people go for them? These practical changes are already helping to boost the economy, but there is more we can do.
	The sense of decline in some areas can be aggravated by the sight of closed or run-down shops. A public consultation has just closed on further relaxations of change of use. We want to unlock the potential of underused and unused retail premises while providing much needed homes at the same time. More people living closer to or in town centres will increase footfall and boost local shops and businesses. We also want to allow retail premises to change to banks and building societies, delivering more branches on the high street and encouraging more choice and more competition for consumers. By contrast, Labour’s planning policies mean more red tape, higher costs for business, and more boarded-up, empty shops.
	As well as cutting excessive regulation, this Government are easing the tax burden on small shops. From April 2014, every business and charity will be entitled to an allowance against their national insurance contributions bill each year. That will reduce the costs of employment, supporting small businesses as they grow. We have doubled small business rate relief until 2014, and made it easier to claim. Since 2010—and it is important to put this in context—the level of relief given has trebled from £333 million to £900 million. We have cut corporation tax, whereas Labour wants to hike it for successful companies.
	Let us compare the record of this Government with that of the last Government.
	Labour opposed making it easier to claim small business rate relief; we changed the law to make it easier to claim, and doubled the rate relief for four years. Labour hiked up business rates on empty properties, with no offsetting reduction elsewhere; we are introducing a new rate relief for empty new build to help to kick-start development. Labour imposed retrospective business rate hikes on England’s ports; we scrapped Labour’s unfair port tax. I recognise, however, that there is still more to do on business rates, which we will balance
	with the need to pay off Labour’s vast deficit. At a time when businesses are looking to grow and help the economy recover, tax stability is vital.

David Lammy: I want to drag the Minister off ports and back to the high street. The Government are doing a review of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, and the Minister will be aware of the destruction caused to many of our high streets across the country. In those circumstances, it is right for people to receive compensation in relation to a crime that was no fault of their own. Will he report back to us on where that review has got to? It would be devastating for high streets if we got rid of that compensation.

Brandon Lewis: That is also why it is important that we ensure, in every part of the country, and especially where the riots caused damage, that we get high streets working, bringing back vitality and business. It is also why we postponed the revaluation until 2017, helping to avoid sharp changes and unexpected hikes in rates bills over the next five years. The biggest beneficiaries from a 2015 revaluation would not have been small shops, including in the north of England, but prime office space in London. City banks would have seen plummeting bills, while everyone else would have faced soaring bills to pay for it. We have cut taxes for small firms and small shops, and we are encouraging innovation. Pop-up shops are a great way for start-up businesses to enter the high street. We have provided support through practical advice on how to set up pop-up shops. My Department even has its own pop-up shop, which I commend to hon. Members wondering what Christmas presents to buy this year.
	We have also backed the “Love your local market” campaign. This year’s campaign in May was almost twice the size of the first. More than 700 places ran 3,500 markets in England, and many people took the opportunity to try trading for the first time. Dates have already been announced for 2014, so “Love your local market” is well on its way to becoming an annual event. Markets have an important part to play in a vibrant town centre. We will do our part by continuing to put in place the framework that will allow local government, businesses and communities to develop their own vision and solutions, driven by their circumstances and needs.
	We are keen to see the creation of more business improvement districts, given their significant potential to revitalise town centres. We have also consulted on plans for property owners to have a greater role in revitalising their high streets though their involvement in business improvement districts. This week I was delighted to announce that British BIDs will be operating the £500,000 business improvement districts loan fund. The fund is now open for business and will be offering loans up to £50,000 to prospective districts that want help with set-up costs.
	We cannot avoid one important fact. For many people going to a town centre, there is a need to park. Parking is vital to modern high streets. Councils must recognise the influence of their parking policies on the viability of high streets, and adjust those policies accordingly. We are taking steps to tackle the draconian parking charges and enforcement that we inherited. We have removed previous requirements in planning guidance to set parking fees that are designed specifically to discourage car use. Our guidance now encourages authorities to set competitive
	charges, and to ensure that parking in town centres is convenient, safe, secure and affordable. Our new national online planning guidance, issued for public testing and comment in August, encourages councils to provide more town centre parking spaces and to end anti-shopper practices.
	However, there is still more to do. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government and for Transport jointly announced last month that the Government will publish details of further reforms.

Jamie Reed: Will the Minister offer a Marxist solution with regard to what happens in those communities where town centre parking is principally owned by private sector interests?

Brandon Lewis: I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman would be so against the private sector, which is what develops businesses and creates jobs. After 13 years, under the previous Government, of decline and failure to deal with the issues, this Government have put together a package of measures to take matters forward. We are now seeing exciting things happening in town centres across the country, with forward-thinking councils—generally, good Conservative councils—developing their town centres for their residents, to give them a product they want to use.
	As I said, my right hon. Friends are looking at further reforms, including stopping CCTV spy cars being used for on-street parking enforcement. We also intend to consult on updating parking enforcement guidance to support local shops, and on issues such as tackling wrongly issued fines, reviewing unnecessary yellow lines and increasing the grace period for parking offences. We will empower local residents and councillors, and stand up for hard-pressed shops.
	Despite 13 years of Labour Government efforts to control everything from the centre, we should all recognise that there is only so much that Government can do. Councils should work to encourage and support high streets by using the powers they already have, particularly on business rates and parking. Local government, businesses and communities need to work together to create their local version of the future high street that is right for their community, harnessing the energy and enthusiasm of local people who best understand the unique needs and opportunities of their community, rather than having a one-size-fits-all approach.
	The Opposition motion is in the wrong direction for our high streets and our country. The coalition Government are standing up for local shops and local shoppers, with lower charges, lower taxes and less red tape. We are giving a helping hand to allow our town centres to thrive and prosper in a modern age. I urge the House to reject the motion.

Joan Ruddock: I must say that that was a—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I forgot to mention that I am imposing a seven-minute speaking limit.

Joan Ruddock: How many seconds did you take, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Lindsay Hoyle: I may take a few more. [Laughter.]

Joan Ruddock: That was a deeply depressing speech from the Minister. He has done absolutely nothing to deal with the issues affecting my high street. I should mention that in 2005, Deptford high street was voted the best high street in London. We really do have a problem with the Minister and his Government.
	Two years ago, I presented a 10-minute rule Bill to amend the use classes order. I did so because of a petition signed by 1,000 people who lived close to the high street, and who were amazed that the council could do nothing to stop the proliferation of betting shops. There were seven in the high street itself, and five in adjoining streets. We noticed an increase in drug dealing, drunkenness, abusive behaviour, begging and intimidation. Unlike the financial institutions that they had replaced—the banks and the building societies—the new occupiers stayed open for longer hours and throughout the weekend, including Sundays. The character of our high street has been seriously damaged by the behaviour of people using those facilities.

Alex Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend think that the Government actually understand the havoc that betting shops and local loan shops are wreaking on many people’s lives? We do not need any more of them. Is it not time that we were tougher on them, and started to promote proper shops instead?

Joan Ruddock: Absolutely. I think that the Minister made it obvious that he does not understand what is going on.
	At the time, all our objections related to betting shops. The bookmakers themselves denied the association between betting shop clusters and antisocial behaviour, yet there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. A leaked memo from William Hill instructs staff
	“not to contact the police when…customers…damage machines…to reduce the number of reports to the police”.
	So we really know that there is a problem in our high streets. It is clear to me that the planning laws need to be strengthened in the interests of local people, and not done away with in the way that the Government propose.

Stephen Timms: I have heard that recently, in East Ham high street, someone smashed up a machine and there was no report to the police for exactly the reason that my right hon. Friend has mentioned: the betting shop chain wants to minimise the number of reports to the police of antisocial behaviour.

Joan Ruddock: The people who own such premises will not take responsibility, and in some senses they are unable to do so. That is the problem. Where there are betting shop clusters, there is associated antisocial behaviour, and none of us has the powers to tackle it. As my right hon. Friend says, even the police are not being informed. It is an absolute scandal.
	When the local campaign began, the concern was entirely about betting shops. Why did the financial institutions leave our community? They left because they were not making enough money, because people in Deptford do not have enough money to enable banks and building societies to thrive. So what do we have now? We have institutions that are taking the very money that those people did not have in the first place. As I have said, it is an absolute scandal.
	Let me put the situation in context. Lewisham is the 31st borough in England in the indices of multiple deprivation. That is very serious. Two of the wards that cover the high street are among the 10% most deprived in England. Is this, I ask the Minister, a community that needs betting shops and payday lenders? Is this not in fact people preying on the most vulnerable in our society and causing them to lead lives that are even more wretched than some of them were in the beginning? We find this utterly unacceptable, and the Minister has given us no hope today that he is going to do anything about it. [Interruption.] Yes, he is making it worse.
	Let me spell it out. In Deptford High street, Nos. 14, 37, 38 to 40, 44, 48 to 50, 52, 60, 70, 72, 93 to 95, 175 and 206 are all either a betting shop, a payday loan shop or a pawn shop. Does the Minister honestly believe this is what local people want? Is this not the Government again refusing to act in the interests of local people, and backing big business against small traders?
	Having said all those negative things, we have a very vibrant and robust community, with people who want to see their community thrive, who want to open small businesses, who want to shop in small businesses, and who have organised among themselves an annual Deptford X festival, as we have lots of artists in the area. This is a community that deserves better from this Government. We have a new library, we have a new school, we have a new public square; they are all sitting there on the high street. We have done many of the things the Minister urges local authorities to do. Currently, the Lewisham local authority is spending a grant from the Mayor of London with match funding of £2 million, but I ask the Minister this: what is the point of doing all that and at the same time ruining the high street through this proliferation of very undesirable businesses? I am not against gambling, and I have certainly borrowed money myself—although not at the rates of interest of payday loaners—but there is a limit to how many of these shops we actually need in any one place, and the limit needs to be set.
	Government Ministers promised to take us seriously. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and I had several debates in which Ministers stood there and said they would take the issue seriously, that they understood it, and that something would be done. The Conservative website promises to
	“put…power in the hands of local people”
	and describes the big society as promising
	“a massive transfer of power from Whitehall to local communities.”
	What hypocrisy is this!
	Local people are crying out for a change in policy to end the ruination of our high streets and to return the high streets to places with the diversity and vibrancy that our community and many others have to offer. Nothing less than Labour’s proposals to do something about the use classes order, to create a situation whereby a local council can respond to local needs, is going to solve the problems and meet the wishes of local people.
	The Minister needs to explain to us tonight why under this Government local people can have no say in their local community development and their local high street, and not have their wishes for their shopping patterns and the needs of their community met. That is the challenge to this Government, and they need to say something better than what the Minister said in his opening speech tonight.

Brian Binley: I commend the Opposition on bringing forward this motion. This is a timely debate and I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute. I wish to make two points, but first please allow me to say that in the last Parliament, in ancient history, I chaired a commission on the whole business of strategies for successful town centres. My foreword started by saying:
	“Our town and city centres lie at the heart of our communities and are as vital to their health as the heart is to the body.”
	That explains my commendation to the Opposition for choosing this debate.

Brian H Donohoe: The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point. Does he accept that it was the Conservatives who allowed out-of-town shopping centres, which have been the reason for the town centres in my area collapsing as places of retail opportunity?

Brian Binley: I understand the point about out-of-town shopping centres, and I will come to that, but neither party in government has anything to crow about in this direction. I urge this Government to be more positive. Turning this into a party political battle does not help when we analyse the real causes, but I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question.
	I wish to make two simple points, the first of which is about the high rents and leases in town centres, especially in relation to out-of-town developments. Business rates on non-domestic properties on the high street are still massively too high. We have not caught up with the point that the hon. Gentleman was making, which was that the value of retail sites has moved yet we still think our town centres are the thumping heart of retail. If we continue to think that, we will drive retailers out of town centres completely. So we need to be very aware of business rates on non-domestic properties in high streets, which are still too high. They are also based on pre-credit-crunch valuations, so let us get real.

Bill Esterson: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about business rates. Recently, I had to write to the Minister about the Valuation Office Agency and the long delays faced by some businesses. Does he agree that that has been a problem? The hon. Gentleman mentioned the pre-credit-crunch valuations. Does he agree that urgent action needs to be taken to deal with that problem? The Government have stepped in on individual cases, but as a general point it is a real problem.

Brian Binley: I cannot make the point I made about businesses being driven out of town centres because of high rates without accepting the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I am happy to do so.
	Small business rate relief is still made a mystery to many local businesses in our town centres. We have not given it the push it needs and deserves, and many of the opportunities remain unclaimed by small businesses. I urge the Government, and us all, to do more to bring small business rate relief to the attention of many small businesses which have struggled through the recession and now see light at the end of the tunnel but need all the help they can get. Similarly, small businesses are less equipped to deal with red tape and with the lease negotiations than large retailers and their resources.
	Many leases still include upward-only rent reviews and we have to do something about that. We have talked about it in this place for a very long time but it is crazy that many businesses under great pressure, one of which I am dealing with in Northampton at the moment, have leases with upward-only rent reviews. I appeal to local government and to local property owners to recognise the iniquity of such clauses in leases.
	Out-of-town developments have, of course, been a problem for town centres. Between 2008 and 2012—so both Front-Bench teams are implicated—approximately 2.4 million square metres of additional shopping centre retail space were added to the planning department’s work. Both Governments are responsible, and we should not try to knock spots off each other on this issue. Both Governments are responsible for adding out-of-town retail space in massive amounts. We need to recognise the impact that that has on our town centres, as I have said before.

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the particular problems arises where the council owns the plot on which people wish to build their new out-of-town centre and will get the money from their doing so?

Brian Binley: I always agree with my hon. Friend and I am grateful for his support in this area of policy.
	Having said that out-of-town development has been immensely harmful, not least in the imbalance of valuation of rate, I shall come on to the damage done by local government. Councils have been the major enemy of our town centres for 30 years. That applies to Labour councils, Liberal councils and Conservative councils. Let me explain why. They have allowed the gradual decline through ring roads, isolating town centres and making it difficult for people to get there. I have already made the point about out-of-town developments. Parking charges have been seen as revenue income, although parking areas were built as a service to shoppers. At last our councils are beginning to appreciate that. Building parking areas on the other side of the ring road so that shoppers have to push their trolley across the ring road does not make a great deal of sense from a planning perspective.
	Poor planning—piecemeal planning—has denuded our town centres dramatically. One of the problems is that a new planning officer will come along with his own little pet scheme, which he will implement without any reference to the heritage of the town or the style of the building. Planning officers are supposed to be the protectors of our heritage, our good open spaces and our buildings, yet they too have been a disaster for 30 years in many of our town centres. I know people who have gone down to their town centre, managed to get across the ring road, seen the new developments and felt that it was not their town at all. The new development gave no understanding of the heritage of the town.
	We need local government to recognise that it has a responsibility to ensure that our town centres are more user-friendly, to ensure that people can get in and out of them easily, to ensure that parking charges are low so that people can come in to shop, and to ensure that we bring people back into our town centres. Too many local government offices have been shoved outside with that new retail development. There is much more that we can do. If anybody wants to read the report, I would be delighted.

Simon Danczuk: I congratulate the Minister on gaining responsibility for the Government’s high street policy. I take the opportunity to declare an interest. Later this year, before Christmas, I am opening a high street shop. My wife and I are establishing Danczuk’s Delicatessen on Rochdale’s high street. You are invited to come and try our wares, Mr Speaker, as are other Members.
	Let me start by talking about Rochdale’s high street. It is suffering just as much as many others across the United Kingdom. It has an average number of empty shops, but it lacks diversity. We have too many charity shops, too many “cash a cheque” shops and far too many payday loan companies. Our problems are similar to those in other towns, of course, because the overall problem is the economy. The Government have presided over a faltering and, at best, flatlining economy. That is what is causing the failure on our high streets.
	I want to make an important point: the growth in underemployment and the increase in temporary, part-time jobs, zero-hours contracts and low-paid work all feed through to the high street. The nature of that work is the cause of the growth in the number of pawnbrokers and payday loan companies on the high street, and not just in Rochdale, but in towns and cities across the United Kingdom.
	My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) referred to the Local Data Company’s research, rightly published today, which shows that although chain stores and multiples are in decline, the number of independent retailers is increasing. That shows—again, this is a reflection of the economy—that the people who have been made redundant over the past couple of years have used their redundancy money to be entrepreneurial and to set up shops. I do not decry that point, because it is an effect of what has been going on in the economy, but it has caused churn and flux on our high streets.
	Another important point about the economy is the living standards crisis that the Government have caused. They cannot take £1,500 a year off the average working family and expect that not to have an impact on the high street. The consequence is a major drop in consumer confidence, and it has certainly changed shopping habits. That, too, is having a direct impact.
	I admit that it is not all the Government’s fault—internet shopping has had an impact, of course—but I believe that they have a laissez-faire attitude towards our high streets and that is causing many of the problems. We have seen their Portas review. The problem is that it has not had much of an impact. They ignored Mary Portas’s comments on business rates, which I think was a mistake. The Portas pilots and the review have now become mired in problems and scandals about how much she was paid by Channel 4 and whether Channel 4 and the programme producers had any involvement in liaising with the Department about where the pilots should be. What I think the Government have learned from that episode is that reality TV is no way to develop Government policy.
	The Government would do better by listening to Bill Grimsey’s alternative high street review. He talks about the need for stronger local leadership, better local analysis of what is going on in local areas and better use of
	technology on the high street. Most importantly, he calls for a radical overhaul of business rates. To illustrate that point, we learned yesterday that inflation now means that business rates will increase in April by 3.2%. According to my analysis, that will add an extra £200 million to the bills of hard-pressed retailers—not all business; just retailers. The truth is that we pay the highest property taxes in the European Union. By 2015 the Treasury will have received more receipts from business rates than from council tax.

Yasmin Qureshi: In the light of what my hon. Friend is saying, does he agree that Labour’s pledge to cut and then freeze business rates would help 1.5 million small business and give local shops and retailers a real boost?

Simon Danczuk: My hon. Friend is correct. That is an extremely important point. That cut will help significantly. I have seen the damage this is doing in my constituency. For examples, my local fish and chip shop recently closed and the premises are being advertised with a rent of £6,000 per annum, but the business rates are £18,722 per annum.

Mark Pawsey: Given what the hon. Gentleman says, is he disappointed that the motion makes no mention of reforming the business rates system?

Simon Danczuk: Business rates are clearly mentioned in the motion, and Labour Front Benchers have made it clear that there will be a review of business rates under a Labour Government.
	Postponing the revaluation of business rates does nothing to help small businesses. Because of this postponement, retailers in Rochdale are subsidising retailers on Regent street in London. That is unacceptable. The Government often say that rate relief can be a subsidy, but it does not even apply to the vast majority of retailers right across this country. According to the Office for National Statistics, in the period between this Government coming to power and 2015, businesses will pay an extra £6.5 billion in business rates on top of what they were already paying.
	The Government and the Minister need to listen to what is being said. Let me give some examples. The hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) has spoken about this and, I understand, has written to the Chancellor asking him to speed up the revaluation of business rates. This week the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo) has written in his local newspaper that he is going to speak to the Communities and Local Government Secretary about the problem with business rates. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) has said that business rates are causing real problems and need urgent reform. The hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) has said that business rates should be linked to the consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) has said:
	“Friends in the Treasury should consider freezing business rates…and give a fighting chance to small businesses.”
	The fact will not be missed that all those hon. Members are Conservatives. It is not only Opposition Members
	who think that business rates should be radically reformed, revised and changed to help small businesses; Government Members think so too.
	Let me conclude by echoing the good point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). When the Labour leader recently announced that a future Labour Government would first reduce business rates and then freeze them, Bill Grimsey, a well-known local retailer, said that Labour was the first party to demonstrate that it gets it. When will the Government get it and cut business rates?

John Pugh: I want to start in consensual mode by congratulating the tablers of the motion and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on putting business rates firmly on the agenda.
	I have had many discussions about the high street with traders and experts such as landlords and agents. I serve on the Communities and Local Government Committee, as does the hon. Gentleman. We have interviewed Mary Portas, civil servants, and Ministers of all shapes and sizes. We have talked about the threat of the internet, the perennial problem of parking, out-of-town shopping, pop-up shops, council policy and the like, but again and again we get back to business rates, which make it hard for businesses to start in the high street and hard for them to survive when the going gets tough.
	The Federation of Small Businesses has raised this issue, as have the retail sector bodies. They are concerned not only about the actual rate but, as the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) said, the problems of revaluation and appeals against current valuations, which take an inordinate amount of time. When I raised revaluation during Business, Innovation and Skills questions not long ago, I think in the previous Session, the Minister, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), said, more or less—I paraphrase—“Be careful what you wish for: they may go up.” I cannot help thinking that he lives in a parallel universe or does not visit the high street all that often.
	Fortunately, that is only part of the Government’s policy; other aspects have been outlined. I very much support the move to localise business rates. I like the continuation of support for the previous Government’s policy of business improvement districts. We are getting one in Southport and I hope it will be very successful. It certainly promises much and is well organised at the moment. However, they do not provide a reduction in business rates, and that is what is now required. I understand that in the latest spending round the Business Secretary considered moving on, or reducing, high street rateable values.

Brian H Donohoe: The rates for a small restaurant in the shopping mall in my area are £30,000, but the mall owner has put the rent at £30,000 as well, so the overall cost—not just the rates—is impacting on the business, which has to make £60,000 a year before it can start to make a profit.

John Pugh: The problem, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, is very specific. If we give a discount or make any kind of reduction to high street retail rates, will that include the whole retail sector and the out-of town
	sector? If we give it to the high street, will we also want to give it to Tesco Express? The Government have to face up to those legitimate problems.
	As the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) said, very little money is being made on the high street at present, and the amount of money that was made in the past will never be made again. The big chains recognise that and are altering their retail model. They have reduced their high street presence and will not come back in the same numbers. Ultimately, we cannot ignore that issue, but we cannot address it locally.
	In some way or another, we must look to the Government to come up with a solution. That will involve the Department for Communities and Local Government, which, judging from its comments so far, is relatively sympathetic; the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which is broadly sympathetic, unless it is lobbied hard by the big traders; and, specifically, the Treasury, which can be fairly unbending on this subject. The Minister needs to set up a cross-departmental meeting that involves the retail sectors, joins up the initiatives—not the silly ones, such as those centred on parking on double yellow lines—and takes action on rates. If the Minister does that, I think he will become the hero of the high street. The high street can get more savvy with the web, diversify more, hold more events and extend or vary its hours, but with the albatross of business rates around its neck it simply cannot thrive.

Andrew Gwynne: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) and to participate in this debate. I regret the partisan tone used by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) with regard to this important matter and in response to the constructive approach taken by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) towards the real problems faced by communities up and down the country. Back Benchers have taken a more conciliatory approach.
	Town centres and our high streets matter: they give us our sense of place, they tell us who we are and they tell us a bit about the history of our communities. People care passionately for them for those reasons. My constituency has lots of little shopping areas and four main shopping town centres. Crownpoint in Denton is the largest shopping centre, followed by Houldsworth square in Reddish, King street in Dukinfield and Haughton Green village. They all face different challenges and have done for the past 25 years or more.
	On planning changes, which have been touched on by the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), the trend for out-of-town shopping had a catastrophic effect on two of the town centres, namely Denton and King street. It started in the 1980s with the planning free-for-all that led to a large rise in the number of out-of-town shopping centres. The construction of an out-of-town Sainsbury’s in Denton led to a dramatic decrease in town centre trade at Crownpoint, and the construction of a Morrisons in Dukinfield and an Asda in Ashton-under-Lyne—on either side of King street—led to a dramatic decline in trade on the traditional shopping street in Dukinfield.

Richard Fuller: Presumably those places were built and have succeeded because that is how people want to shop. It is now very difficult to unbuild them. What is the hon. Gentleman’s answer? Does he want to change the decisions that people make about how and where they shop?

Andrew Gwynne: Absolutely not. I was going to make the point that these are long-term trends. We cannot put the genie back in the bottle. However, we cannot get away from the fact that the way in which we shop has changed and one reason for that is the rise in the number of out-of-town shopping centres.

Brian Binley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we could have made our town centres much more user-friendly and retail-friendly than they are? I recognise that out-of-town centres are demand driven, but we could have made the retail offer better in our town centres and we have failed to do so.

Andrew Gwynne: We absolutely could.
	The attempt to put the genie back in the bottle led the previous Government to introduce the sequential test, which meant that town centre retail development was prioritised and only if developments could not be accommodated in the town centre could developers look at edge-of-centre or out-of-centre sites. That was an important change.
	The first political campaign that I got involved in as a newly elected councillor in 1996 was against the decision to close Denton post office, which was located on the market square. We lost that battle and Denton post office moved into the Co-op store on the other side of the town centre. Overnight, that market lost 25% of its footfall and it never recovered. Fewer traders came, fewer shoppers came, still fewer traders came and by 2008, the council had to close Denton market.
	I am really stating the obvious in saying that shopping habits have changed over the years. My grandparents did a daily food shop. Very few people today have that routine. My parents would do a weekly shop and might have gone to the shops on a daily basis for odds and ends. Today, we buy in bulk. This debate is not just about the rise in internet shopping; the way in which we live our lives has changed fundamentally.
	Although I agree with the hon. Member for Northampton South about the impact of planning decisions and about rents and rates, I disagree with him on the role of local government. There is some very good practice out there. I will spend a few minutes talking about two examples in my constituency. Labour-controlled Tameside metropolitan borough council has established town teams in its five main town centres of Ashton-under-Lyne, Denton, Droylsden, Hyde and Stalybridge. Those are not Portas pilots, but were established on the initiative of the council. They are all different in their make-up and have different priorities for their town centres.
	I suppose that I should declare an interest as a proud member of the Denton town team. We have developed a vision for Denton that is unique to Denton. We have organised some town team events. We had a party in Victoria park over the summer to celebrate the centenary of that fine piece of civic open space, we are holding an Oktoberfest this month and we have started to organise the Christmas lights and events for the town centre.
	More importantly, the town team has led an initiative to create a new pop-up shop in Denton town centre. We had a “Dragons’ Den”-style competition to design and build a new modular shop. Bill Jennings, the chair of the Denton town team, has worked with the council and the local college on that competition. The winning entry has been built and the planning permission has been granted for a piece of wasteland opposite what used to be Denton’s market square. The new pop-up shop will be a confectioners where one can buy traditional sweets out of a jar, such as a quarter—I still use old money—of midget gems. Those are the initiatives being led by Denton town team.
	The issue is not only about occupancy rates, however, and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham is right about the over-concentration of uses, as that changes the vibrancy and vitality of our shopping streets. In Denton, the problem is less one of payday lenders and bookmakers than of takeaways. Takeaways are great, and in the evening the main street is thriving and vibrant. During the day, however, the shutters are down, which gives an impression that Denton in the day time is closed for business. We must consider how to deal with that.
	In my final minute I want to talk about the Stockport part of my constituency. Stockport is a Portas pilot town, but the part I represent—Reddish—is concerned that it might be overlooked because of the concentration on Stockport town centre. In partnership with businesses in Reddish, town councillors have established the Reddish business forum. That is a different approach from the one taken by the Tameside part of my constituency, but it is having a big impact. Businesses are driving changes to the high street around Houldsworth square in Reddish so that they do not get left behind. They have organised a fantastic arts festival—ReddFest—which has been running for three years, and they have held markets and community events on Houldsworth square. It is working; that is best practice—local government working with business for local communities. Those local communities have the answers and we must trust them to deliver. That is why I commend the contribution made by those on the Labour Front Bench. This is about empowering our local communities to do the right thing for our town centres.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. To try to accommodate all remaining colleagues who are interested in speaking in the debate, I must reduce the time limit for each Back-Bench speech to five minutes, with immediate effect.

Mark Pawsey: I welcome today’s debate because we can all agree that high streets and town and city centres are vital to local economies, and I put it to the House that this Government are committed to seeing them improve. The issues faced by our town centres did not start in 2010. There were concerns in the high street well before then, and I do not recall any initiatives to support town centres from the Labour party when it was in government.
	I will focus my remarks on the threat to town centres from out-of-town retail and internet shopping, both of which did not start only three years ago. Given the threat from out-of-town retail, it is right to have a
	“town centre first” policy, and last year when considering the national planning policy framework, the Communities and Local Government Committee was insistent that such a policy should be included. It is important to ensure that if development can take place in a town centre, it should do so over development on other sites. I am often asked why I am so supportive of a “town centre first” policy, but anyone who has visited the United States, where there are few planning controls, will see holed-out town and city centres, with doughnutted different shopping developments round the outside.
	My constituency of Rugby is faced with an interesting dilemma, namely the proposed redevelopment of an existing out-of-town centre, with a firm commitment for a department store to be located out of town. In Rugby we have aspired to a department store for more than 30 or 40 years—I well remember a vacant site in the town centre awaiting such a development, but it did not come. We now have the opportunity to take that development out of town, or not at all, and I regret that we will be doing the right thing in taking it out of town. I will speak later about the importance of accepting new housing and how that can support retail. The proposal from my local authority to accept new housing means that we will have sufficient customers both for the enhancement of existing out-of-town retail, and to support our existing town centre.
	Reference has been made to internet shopping. That is increasingly becoming the norm and town centres must adapt. Broadly, I believe that if 12% or 15% of retail purchases are conducted over the internet, town centres must reduce the size of the shopping available by a similar amount. The alternative is to grow a population. If we grow our population, we can defend the size of our existing town centre. A progressive Conservative council in Rugby is building 1,300 new homes at the gateway site. Further developments will result in 6,200 new homes. Communities cannot legitimately speak of their disappointment with high street decline if they are unwilling to accept the need for additional new housing in their areas.
	On high street development, I welcome the Mary Portas review. The Communities and Local Government Committee looked closely at her report. I was pleased that she drew attention to the fact that what happens in town centres is about much more than businesses, and that we need to look at our town centres from a wider perspective, considering open spaces, libraries, coffee shops and the night-time economy. Although she has received criticism for failing to follow through on her proposals, she should be praised for highlighting those things and for engaging in discussions on the future of our town centres.
	The motion refers to localism and criticises the Government, but which party pioneered the localism agenda and introduced the Localism Act 2011? This Government have given power to more people.

Marcus Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that neighbourhood planning has made a massive difference to localism, and that it can be applied to our town centres and high streets?

Mark Pawsey: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have a frontrunner in neighbourhood planning in my constituency, which is looking into the provision of local retail.
	Localism could have happened at any time in the 13 years under Labour, but it did not. It is rich of Labour Members to lecture the Government on the local agenda when they centralised power with the national planning policy framework. As my hon. Friend has said, neighbourhood plans give local communities a greater say in what happens in their high streets.
	The motion mentions betting shops. One question Labour Members need to answer is whether they would prefer a vacant unit or a betting shop that brings people and life into the town centre.
	There is no denying that the future of the high street and our town centres is an urgent matter. It is entirely right that we should discuss it today. It is important that local authorities have a progressive attitude and take positive steps to bring forward development that sustains life within town centres.

Tom Blenkinsop: My constituency has a string of individual settlements with local high streets or estate precinct shopping provision. The high streets in Middlesbrough and East Cleveland face two challenges—one long-standing challenge and another relatively recent one.
	The long-standing challenge is out-of-town shopping, which began in my area under the previous Conservative Government, when the Teesside Development Corporation built Teesside shopping park. We acknowledge that that was a good thing for the local area and that it provided lots of employment, but in the short to medium term, there was no plan for high streets in Middlesbrough, East Cleveland and Stockton to deal with the effects of out-of-town shopping, an American phenomenon.
	The second challenge is the growth of web-based retailing, with goods delivery to the door. Neither threat can be engineered out of existence. They are a fact of life enshrined in past planning decisions and the advance of new technology. Therefore, if our local high streets in Guisborough, Loftus, Skelton and Brotton are to survive as proper retail outlets, and not just as monolithic parades of hot food takeaways, betting shops and charity outlets, imaginative thinking is required. We need both to be flexible with our built high street environment and to have the support mechanisms to ensure that high streets are allowed to remain competitive.
	One concern is the erosion, as a result of cuts to local council funding and changes to the regeneration framework imposed in the name of blind ideology, of the support that local authorities and regeneration agencies could provide. One example of that erosion can be seen in the main shopping area in my constituency, Guisborough, where support from the local authority, Redcar and Cleveland borough council, in the shape of help from borough-wide high street managers, is no more. An ambitious programme underpinned by the then regional development agency, the market towns initiative, has disappeared along with the RDA.
	We are also hampered by a lack of support from the finance and insurance industries regarding the conversion of upper floors of older retail premises, where traditionally a 1900s shopkeeper and his family lived. New housing is hampered by soaring insurance premiums, as insurers declare that such occupation provides a security risk to
	the shop below, even though the new families could provide a form of watchman service if there were attempts at intrusion.
	The worst threat comes from the approach of the Department for Communities and Local Government, which sees any form of development and occupancy, however much it would harm the ambience, style, attractiveness and vitality of the high street and the traditional retailers, as necessary to provide fig leaf support for the proposition that the Government’s economic policies are bearing fruit—even if that fruit is a poisoned apple for neighbouring businesses. Successive changes to use class orders and permitted development rights are eroding the powers needed by local authorities and local communities to shape their high streets and town centres to reflect local needs, demands and aspirations. The changes to once unquestioned and accepted planning rules are making it possible for payday lenders, betting shops and fast food takeaways to open without getting the kind of planning permission which, complete with provisions, enabled a balanced stance to change and development in a retail setting.
	Imposing a laissez-faire approach that deregulates change of use so that no such permissions are required merely leads to bad neighbour problems for everyone and encourages fly-by-night forms of unsustainable development that cash in on passing social trends, with no thought to encouraging organic change for the better in the host setting. One such example is the spread of pawnbrokers and cheque-cashing outlets as a result of widespread poverty and the need to realise assets simply to get some cash to feed a family. Such changes are often cumulative—one outlet selling cheap booze or hot food takeaways is often followed by a competitor. The same is true of the finance industry, which has followed a pattern of migration from a specific A2 business enclave to a former Al shop front entry high street presence, thus suffocating the chance of niche retailers opening in their stead.
	Use class orders have been vital to protecting public health. It is the application of such orders by local councils, including those in my constituency, that has barred hot food takeaways from opening near school gates. Without such controls, that could again become a problem and have a long-term detrimental impact on children’s health. As I know from my constituency postbag, such matters are high on the agenda of concern for my constituents. It is far better to keep some forms of control regarding the use and make-up of our high streets, while at the same time tackling the real problems facing small retailers: constant increases in business rates, lack of any real tangible support from bankers and insurers, and constant rent increases that are often determined by remote financial institutions such as big pension funds, which seek to maximise income at the expense of quality of life.
	Labour’s pledge to cut and then freeze business rates will help 1.5 million small businesses, many of which are in retail premises. That will give local shops a real boost, unlike the pursuit of the chimera of a laissez-faire, kick-start approach that exists only within the heads of Government Front Benchers.

Marcus Jones: I welcome today’s debate. High streets and town centres are vital to every constituency. Many that were once vibrant face immense challenges from the pressures of structural change, such as the year-on-year double-digit growth in online retail and the continued growth of out-of-town retail. I had hoped that the motion would contain helpful measures, but it seems to be concerned with political ideology set on dictating to individuals what they might want, rather than providing the answers to the problems that our high streets and town centres face.
	I commend the Government for removing permitted development rights, which are referred to in the motion, from our town centres. One of the biggest issues we have is an oversupply of retail and office space, particularly in secondary areas—a problem that a lot of people do not like to admit. There is a lack of footfall in these areas and a lack of maximisation of available time. For example, there is often not a very good early evening economy. It is an excellent idea, therefore, to allow landlords to turn commercial property into residential property. We need far more people to live in most town centres to create that footfall and that early-evening economy.
	As for limiting certain use classes, there is a real risk of unintended consequences. Across the country, many of our struggling town centres have more of the use classes that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) mentioned, so what she advocates could destabilise town centres. Of the use classes the Opposition have a problem with, one is payday lending. I must admit that I am not overly keen on payday lending; it has its place, but the regulation needs to be looked at. The Government are doing that, however, and that is a far better way of dealing with payday lending than saying, “You can’t be in a particular town centre because of planning regulations.” I mentioned the structural change in retailing, but there has been a structural change in bookmaking too; bookmakers have shifted from the periphery and secondary areas to primary areas, because as town centres have become more difficult to fill, landlords have reduced rents, bringing bookmakers on to the high street. We need to consider both industries carefully, because we do not want to end up with more empty shops, fewer jobs and less VAT, national insurance and corporation tax being paid.

Mark Pawsey: Would my hon. Friend rather see a vacant unit or one occupied by a bookmaker?

Marcus Jones: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is for individuals to choose whether to use bookmakers, but there is obviously a market for them and they create jobs on the high street. At the end of the day, would we rather have somewhere empty and possibly boarded up, or a bookmaker? I know which I would choose. I would choose to have the property occupied. The Opposition Front-Bench team grimace, but from how they have been talking about our high streets and town centres, one would think there was 100% occupancy and that these businesses were forcing out other businesses. If the hon. Member for City of Durham came out to high streets and town centres across the country, she would know that high streets are struggling and that there are a lot of empty units. Those businesses are not forcing people out, as she insinuates.
	I know from speaking to local businesses that business rates are a challenge. Although many of the secondary areas in my constituency town centre benefit from the small business rate relief—I am glad the Government have extended that until 2014, a policy that Labour opposed, and that some of those small businesses will receive £2,000 towards their national insurance bill, which will be very welcome—there is a challenge for small businesses in primary areas of town centres, where they do not benefit from the rate relief. We need to look at that carefully to see what we can do to help those small businesses. This is a complex area, but I am greatly concerned by Labour’s policy and how it would pay for it. It advocates scrapping the Government’s pro-business, pro-jobs reduction in corporation tax, which would be a retrograde step. It wants to send the message to businesses that we are closed for business and inward investment and to halt the progress that the Government are making. We have already created 1.4 million new jobs.
	I would have liked to raise several other issues today, but in general, the motion offers very little in the way of solutions for high streets and causes me concern about the direction of Labour policy in wanting to control individuals. I will certainly be opposing the motion tonight.

Bill Esterson: The answer to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) about how to pay for business rates is to grow the economy. If he listens to what retailers and other businesses are saying, he will also know that business rates are at the top of their list of problems, which is why what is said in the motion moved by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), is the right thing to do.
	I want to talk about the retailers in the three town centres in my constituency, in Formby, Crosby and Maghull. Like others, we have enthusiastic and energetic local retailers who are committed to their local communities and work incredibly hard. Many of them do an excellent job and run superb businesses, but they are desperate for improvements to be made to our town centres and desperate for the kind of support that we have been discussing today to be given sooner rather than later. They want to take advantage of the opportunities that are available, not just to deal with the challenges they face.
	We have talked a lot today about those challenges and some of the difficulties. The three high streets that I represent face similar challenges, albeit with slightly different issues. The town of Maghull has a small supermarket with a parade of shops—people have to cross the road to get to the main part of the town centre—and has the second part of the Portas funding, backed up by funding from the local council. Crosby also has funding from round two of the Portas pilot, which is backed by the local council as well. In Maghull the town council has got involved—it has tried to use pop-up shops—but recognises that this is only a short-term fix.
	I have to say to the Minister—or I would have, but he is no longer in the Chamber—that car parking is not the issue in the town centres that I represent. People are
	going to out-of-town shopping centres for a number of reasons, not least the convenience of being able to buy everything under one roof, so whether we have car parking charges or not is somewhat irrelevant. I also thought it was odd that he said it was okay for privately owned car parks to charge for parking, but not for councils to do the same.
	Crosby has a similar issue to Maghull with empty units. Other Members have mentioned the number of charity shops, which is a particular issue in Formby, which has something like 14 charity shops. Some of them sell the same, new goods as other traders, but they do not compete on a level playing field, because the cost base for charity shops is that much lower, as they pay only 20% of business rates and are staffed by volunteers. I do not wish to criticise charities and their need to raise funds, but that is a real issue.
	All three town centres in my constituency share similar problems, but they also have opportunities. Formby and Crosby are half a mile from the beach and have opportunities to attract the many visitors to the area, particularly in the summer. Crosby has the famous “Another Place” statues by Antony Gormley on the beach. People come to visit the statues, but they do not know where to go afterwards.

Andrew Gwynne: Is that not precisely the reason why we should trust local communities to develop their own visions for their own town centres? Each town centre is unique and will have a different answer to how to revitalise the community.

Bill Esterson: My hon. Friend has linked the two points. We need to trust local communities to come up with answers, because they all have different opportunities. I have mentioned the opportunity to link the beach and the visitor economy to support the high streets in Formby and Crosby, but equally—this has come out a number of times—local people do not want more legal loan sharks, bookies or fast-food takeaways taking over at every available opportunity. They want to see high-quality retailers encouraged into high streets and to support good local traders, not necessarily payday loan companies, bookmakers or fast-food takeaways when there are too many of them.
	We have some good businesses, as I have said. Each of the three areas is underpinned by a medium-sized supermarket. However, even having a supermarket in the town centre is no guarantee of support for other traders, because people tend to do all their shopping under the one roof, so whether it is out of town or not, the resulting problem seems to be similar.
	I have been asking businesses in my communities what they want. Dealing with business rates was top of the agenda, but the second item was economic growth linked to the cost of living. An energy price freeze and regulation of the energy market—another flagship Labour policy—are exactly what retailers and businesses want to see, because energy represents one of their biggest costs.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend said that business rates were a factor for his businesses. Is it not part of the problem that no business rate revaluation has taken place and that many of those businesses are still considered to be in prime shopping areas, when in fact those areas are anything but that?

Bill Esterson: My hon. Friend reminds me of a point that I was going to make. Business rates and rents are very high in the town centres, but we only have to go a few hundred yards down the side streets to see a different picture emerging. People can afford the rents and rates there, and businesses are doing much better because their cost base is so much lower. He is absolutely right to suggest that we cannot afford to wait for that revaluation to take place. People are already on their knees and hanging on by their fingernails, if that is not too many metaphors for one sentence. They certainly need that help right now.
	Business rates are certainly the No. 1 issue when I talk to retailers and small businesses, and when I talk to representatives of the Federation of Small Businesses, as I do from time to time. Businesses need help, whether through business rates, through proper banking support involving going back to the old-fashioned bank manager acting as an adviser, through having a mentor to encourage and support them, or through the local council and others in the community helping them to make the most of the opportunities. That is how we will revitalise our town centres. More payday loan companies, bookmakers and fast-food takeaways are not the answer.

Damian Collins: We all represent very different communities, and our town centres will be different as well. Those of us whose constituencies contain multiple towns will know that there can be great differences even within a few miles.
	We cannot get away from the two major trends that everyone has talked about—namely, the impact of out-of-town shopping and the impact of internet shopping. Those factors are not going to go away. No one is proposing legislation to move the big sheds into the town centres or to ban the use of the internet as a shopping tool; it would be ridiculous if they did. Those factors make the challenge all the greater, because we have to make shopping in the town centre an experience. In the old days, people regarded the town centre as a destination in its own right. Now, it is an experience that they go for, during which they might undertake some shopping as well. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), is nodding. She will not be doing so in a moment.
	I set up the town team in Folkestone in response to the Government’s Portas pilot initiative. That brought together the local authority, local politicians, the local business community, the chambers of commerce, local independent traders and the national chains that operate in the town, and allowed them to start to think about the sort of town centre experience they wanted. We set up that town team the best part of two years ago and, in that time, I have never been part of a conversation that focused, in the way that the hon. Lady’s did, almost exclusively on payday lending shops and bookmakers. I have never sat in a meeting with business people and heard them say, “The problem with this town is that we are being pushed out by betting shops.”
	Some hon. Members might feel that they have too many betting shops, takeaways and payday lenders in their constituencies. We heard the speech by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), who set out her case passionately. In her
	case, the problem has happened already. The proposals that the hon. Member for City of Durham put forward would not help. Is Labour looking for the compulsory closure of the betting shops and payday lenders that are already there? If those shops are so bad, perhaps they should just ban them outright. If they are the curse of the high street, perhaps they should legislate to get rid of them. Labour is not proposing to do that, however. Hon. Members will have a view on whether there are too many of them; I suggest that the legislation we have to look at is not the Localism Act 2011 or anything that has come from the Department for Communities and Local Government. The problems are the consequence of the Gambling Act 2005, which was passed by the Labour Government. That is where the quarrel of the hon. Member for City of Durham quarrel should lie.
	The hon. Lady did not mention the chambers of commerce in her speech. In fact, she was dismissive of the work of the town teams and did not focus on them at all. What we hear when we get representatives of the chambers of commerce and businesses round the table are suggestions for initiatives similar to the one described by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) in his interesting speech. In those initiatives, we see people coming together to plan events, to create something special and unique in the town centre that will bring people back into it. It is lots of those sorts of initiatives that will reverse the trends seen in many towns, particularly Folkestone in my constituency, where there is under-trading and people leave the town to do their shopping elsewhere. The challenge we face is to bring more of those people back in.

Sarah Newton: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Does he agree that business improvement districts, such as the ones in my Truro and Falmouth constituency, provide good local solutions to the need to improve our town centres?

Damian Collins: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which feeds into the debate on business rates, on which I shall touch. Calling for a big cut in business rates is bold, is supported by the business community and amounts to a very big tax cut. Like all tax cuts, it has to be provided for. What we have seen so far from the Government are cuts in taxes for small and large businesses. We have seen targeted relief through enterprise zones and regional growth funds, which help businesses on the high street as well as those in other locations. We have seen more work done, too, on business improvement districts. That support has been targeted in the areas where it can really help.
	What we have seen from the Opposition side is a “rob Peter to pay Paul” exercise between the business communities—taking from some businesses and giving it to other businesses in a short-term and small way, which I do not believe will make any difference at all. It is by working together through business improvement districts and through supporting all businesses with tax cuts that we will see the changes that we need. Ultimately, good local plans will be the answer, as the towns come together to say, “This is the sort of experience we want to create.”
	Members have been absolutely right to highlight the issue of parking. Guidelines from the last Government undoubtedly encouraged local authorities to reduce the
	number of cars in towns by encouraging people not to drive into the town centre, by increasing parking charges and by making it difficult for people to come into the towns to park. That has to be reversed. If we want to meet the challenge posed by out-of-town shopping centres or internet shopping, we must make it as easy as possible for people to come into the town centre and choose to do their shopping physically there, while providing them with a memorable, enjoyable and unique experience. All our efforts should be focused on reducing unnecessary charges and burdens. Many of us have fought campaigns in our own constituencies to keep free on-street parking in town centres, to encourage discretionary shopping and to bring people in.
	The town teams and the business improvement districts have done particularly good work here, for example by encouraging the roll-out of wi-fi in town centres. We need to make our town centres places where people want to live, work and spend their time. We need to encourage more people to live in town centres through change of use so that people, as I say, live, work and enjoy their leisure time in the town centre. That is part of the new experience that we have to create.
	Folkestone has seen a very successful regeneration of the old town area, which had seen high levels of closed shops and under-utilised space for many years, through the construction of a new creative quarter in the old town. Occupancy rates have gone up dramatically. In fact, all the properties that have now been refurbished by the Creative Foundation will be full by the end of October this year. That is a very positive change, which has led to a broad programme of exhibitions and events, and provided reasons for people to come into the town centre. Such an integrated programme shows how to revitalise our town centres; it will make more of a difference than anything else.
	In my final few seconds, let me say that many of us are disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) was unsuccessful in his campaign to become Deputy Speaker. I know how hard he has worked to champion small businesses. The loss to the House in his not becoming Deputy Speaker is a gain for us in debate, as we will be able to benefit from his contributions in many more debates to come.

Sarah Champion: Yesterday, my constituent, Mr Iqbal, a shop owner, was murdered in Rotherham and another person was seriously injured. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House in sending my sympathies and condolences to their families and friends. I would also like to congratulate South Yorkshire police on detaining the suspects so quickly.
	This debate is about our high streets, but we need to remember the people who work there. We need to give particular attention to lone workers who are isolated and all too often subjected to abuse and violence. These workers do not enjoy any additional protection in law. I urge hon. Members who are interested in changing that to support my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) and sign her early-day motion 529, and I urge the Minister to consider it.

Bill Esterson: Will my hon. Friend join me in the Freedom from Fear campaign launched today by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers to
	deal with threats to shop workers and attacks on them of the very tragic kind that she just mentioned?

Sarah Champion: I absolutely support that campaign and thank my hon. Friend for mentioning it.
	Now, however, Rotherham high street is swamped with payday loan shops, which are effectively loan sharks on the high street. Many of my colleagues have been campaigning for better legislation on payday loan companies, which charge in some cases 16,500% interest, without even checking the ability of the person to pay the money back. Nationally, there are 20% more payday loan shops than a year ago. One key reason they have been able to become so prevalent so quickly is that they have been able to take over premises formerly designated for banks and building societies. Being on the high street gives legitimacy to such companies, yet the damage they can do is well documented. They appear to be a quick fix for temporary financial problems, but sadly they often become an extremely expensive burden on the people who can ill afford extortionate repayments.
	The changes the Government plan could almost be seen as a green light for the expansion of payday lending and similar companies on the high street. They pave the way for such companies to take over other forms of shops, and not just those formerly designated for financial organisations. I feel certain that if local councils were able to determine such matters in conjunction with the community, we would be better able to encourage more responsible lenders, such as credit unions, to gain a foothold in this market. Without the controls we propose, I fear that yet more of our high streets will become dominated by outlets that serve only to worsen a spiral of poverty and decline. At the very least, the Government changes will reduce the power of communities to have a say on the types of shops on their high street.
	Rotherham is part of the second round of Portas towns. As Mary Portas herself said,
	“when a high street has too much of one thing it tips the balance of the location and inevitably puts off potential retailers and investors”.
	We cannot allow that to happen. Local people want the power to shape their town centres. Rather than creating a free-for-all in which that power is actively denied, we should work with local businesses, business improvement districts and others to help to make high streets vibrant and safe places once again, putting them back in the heart of our communities.

Richard Fuller: I shall be brief so that my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) can also make a contribution.
	I thank the Minister for his visit to Bedford this week. I am sure he would join me in congratulating the Bedford town team, the Bedford business improvement district, and particularly the leader of the Bedford business improvement district, Christina Rowe, who has provided strong leadership in difficult circumstances, on creating a vibrant response to the Government’s incentives and initiatives. I think it was the prospect of the Minister visiting Bedford that got the council belatedly to put through cuts in parking charges in the town centre. I hope that is just the start of the local council doing more to reduce parking charges in Bedford.
	I want to address some of the points made by Opposition Members. My first admonition to them would be the old saying, “actions have consequences.” In relation to this debate, the actions of the previous Government have had consequences that we are seeing today. Will Labour Members recognise that the liberalisation of licensing laws, the changes that were put through in the Gambling Act 2005, and their Government’s lack of control of the massive growth in personal debt during their period in office led precisely to some of the concerns that they are talking about today?
	I found their recommendations on stores and the selection of stores quite confusing. It was not clear whether they wanted people to choose which stores were in the town centre, or whether they wanted to tell people what stores should be in town centres. Perhaps I can help them by saying that those who want to give people more choice should liberalise and allow people to make their own decisions, but if they want to decide which stores are right for people, that is socialism. The socialist selection of stores that we have heard from Opposition Members is a flawed policy, which gives new meaning to Marks & Spencer. [Interruption.] I will not give way, as I want my hon. Friend the Member for Witham to have the time to make her speech.
	I want to make three suggestions to my hon. Friend the Minister. First, on betting shops—this was the first question I asked when I became a Member of Parliament—will he consider getting rid of fixed-odds betting machines, and then act to do so? Such machines create tremendous incentives that make the local retail presence of betting shops far more likely. The change is long overdue.
	Secondly, will the Minister think about service quality in town centres, and about ways of helping them to be creative in their provision of excellence? One of the differences between a large store and a small store is the fact that service interaction is much more important to the success of a small store, and I am not sure that we are doing enough to create excellence in service. Perhaps some of the initiatives to which Lord Baker has referred could help in that regard.
	Finally, let me suggest that the example of the “gamesmakers”—the volunteers who, during the Olympics, came together to create a delightful experience for people who wanted to attend the games—could be extended to our towns. Perhaps we could create “townsmakers”. As we all know, McDonald’s is a purveyor of excellent service in its restaurants, and it also provided assistance during the London Olympics. I had a very interesting conversation with the franchise holder of McDonald’s in my home town. Perhaps the Minister could have a conversation either with Mr Ishmael Anilmis, the franchise holder of McDonald’s in Bedford—who is in himself an excellent story of progress and entrepreneurship—or with McDonald’s nationally about how the company can take what it has learnt from the “gamesmaker” experience, and use it to improve our town centres and the quality of service that they provide.

Priti Patel: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) for shortening his own speech in order to allow me to speak.
	I have spent 35 years growing on the high street. My parents were shopkeepers, and I am proud to be the daughter of shopkeepers. I have seen a great deal of change on the high street, and I found Labour Members’ contributions to the debate somewhat disappointing. My hon. Friend the Minister rightly said that we should take no lectures from the Labour party when it comes to the future of the high street. I remember that not so long ago, under the last Government, my parents’ shop was closed because of Labour’s post office closure programme. That brought devastation to many communities, including those on the high street.
	As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), there has been a great deal of debate in the House about business rate revaluation. He referred to the Bill Grimsey report. Bill Grimsey came to Witham over the summer to work with my town team, to observe the initiatives, and to discuss how we could enhance our high street and town centre. Some very positive contributions had been made, but business rates were still the No. 1 issue that was being raised by my local shopkeepers. That is hardly surprising, because they pose a big challenge.
	While the Minister has been very clear about where the Government stand on rate revaluation, I ask him at least to consider at some stage—if not now, hopefully immediately after 2015—taking a fresh look at the issue. I should like him to think about what we can do, and when we can introduce reform. In particular, I urge him to do something that the Government have been doing very successfully thus far, and continue to devolve more power down to local authorities and communities. I ask him to encourage the provision of more support for the survival and growth of local town centres and high streets through some of the initiatives which we have already heard about. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) mentioned not just town teams but business improvement districts. Those are community-led initiatives. We need less state intervention, and more community support and community innovation at the grass roots. That is what will transform our town centres and high streets.
	There is no doubt that we have done a great deal so far in terms of discounts on rates. The Government’s sentiments are clear: they feel that town centres need innovation and entrepreneurialism. We are doing good things in cutting red tape and lowering taxes, which did not happen under the last Government. Businesses in my community and in my constituency know that it would never happen under a Labour Government, because it was their socialist policies that did so much damage in the last Administration. Moreover, it was a former Labour authority in my constituency that did a great deal of damage to my local high street. We are changing that now, which is a very positive development.
	Another issue that has been touched on is the role of neighbourhood plans, which have been reintroduced to return development powers to local communities. Witham in particular is doing a great deal. The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) shakes her head. She is welcome to come to Witham and see some of the good things that we are doing there. Neighbourhood plans have been transformational in my community, and part of the reason for that is development. There has been growth, which is something that we should praise and encourage. There are more new homes, and the new
	homes bonus will help with infrastructure development and infrastructure investment.
	Finally, I urge the Minister to come to Witham when he is en route to his constituency, and to meet our town team and look at some of the innovative ideas—the edginess—that we have, because this is about the empowerment of local communities. I commend his Department—in particular him and the Secretary of State—for devolving more of those powers to the grass roots and to our communities.

Andy Sawford: It is a great pleasure to speak for the Opposition in this debate and to follow the excellent contributions made by many Members, not least the opening contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), who set out a very strong case for our motion.
	Our high streets and town centres are struggling. We all know our shopping habits are changing, but there are other critical factors affecting our town centres. Living standards have been falling in 39 out of the 40 months that this Prime Minister has been in office, and that is having a huge effect on high-street spend. Currently, one in seven shops are empty—a threefold increase since 2008—and many others are being turned into yet more payday lenders, betting shops and takeaways. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) highlighted the changing character of his high street and he also outlined the good practice of his local council, and it was good to hear that, as it was to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on the good practice of his local council in protecting its high street. Such great local initiatives were a feature of many of today’s contributions and, I say as a localist, they are good to hear and should be celebrated.

Brian Binley: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Will he also recognise that the Northampton Alive project—which he has shown some interest in, for which I am grateful—is transforming our county town?

Andy Sawford: May I say what a great pleasure it is to see the hon. Gentleman bounce back so quickly and make a contribution to this debate of such obvious passion and expertise? He only narrowly lost out earlier, but, as has been said, his loss in the Deputy Speaker election is our gain in today’s debate. Rather cheekily, however, I would prefer to invite him to come to Corby and see what a great Labour local authority has done. I understand the comments he has made about out-of-town retail, and many other Members echoed them, but we have protected Corby town centre and we have seen the fruits, as there are now 8 million shoppers coming each year—and I hope that will be 8 million and one when he decides to come and visit us.
	We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) about the payday loans companies in their high streets. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton made a very powerful point when he drew a comparison between the experiences of different Members in their local communities, suggesting it is not appropriate to compare the County road in Liverpool with the King’s road in Chelsea.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) tried to amend the Localism Bill to tackle the problem of betting shops, and he made the case for that again today, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), who reminded us that, as so often with this Government, the rhetoric does not match the reality on localism and giving councils the real powers they need to address this problem.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) gave an example from her area of the detrimental impact the Government’s change of use policy is already having, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) talked about the problem in our high streets. She said the two wards that cover the high street in her constituency are in the top 10% most deprived in the country. She says betting shops, pawn shops and payday loan companies are preying on some of the most vulnerable people, and she made a very strong case that the planning laws need strengthening, not weakening. That was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), who also talked about the importance of the proposal to cut business rates, a point my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made.

Richard Graham: On tackling payday loans, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is crucial to recognise one significant step taken by this Government, which is to allow credit unions to lend money without their members first having to make a deposit? Does he agree that credit unions are the way forward, through attracting the people who are most vulnerable to borrow responsibly?

Andy Sawford: I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman agree that action needs to be taken to address the problem of payday loan companies on our high streets, but I have to say that the response so far from his Front-Bench colleagues has been far too weak. I hope we will have his support in trying to improve the protections available for constituents around the country.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) spoke passionately about his town centre, telling us how the campaign to save the Denton post office was his political awakening. He spoke with knowledge and pride about the many great initiatives in his town, points that I wish to echo in respect of what is happening in the five towns across my constituency. All the local authorities, including the town and parish councils, which play a particularly important role in our smaller town centres, are trying very hard to protect them.

Rory Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andy Sawford: I have very little time, so I am going to continue my speech.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) is making a very personal contribution to the success of his high street, and I am sure that all hon. Members will want to wish Mrs Danczuk well with the opening of Danczuk’s Delicatessen. He powerfully highlighted the impact of the living standards crisis on our high streets, saying, rightly, that there is a relationship
	between security of employment and issues such as zero-hours exploitation, and people’s ability to spend on the high street.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) opened her speech by offering condolences to the family of her constituent Mr Iqbal, who was tragically murdered. May I associate all Opposition Members and, indeed, the whole House, with the condolences that she has sent to his family? She makes a powerful point that we ought to have a concern for the safety of people who work in retail.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) opened his speech by telling us about the Government’s various initiatives. He told us that over the past two years they have established the Portas pilots, the town team partners, the future high streets forum—there was no end to the initiatives. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, it is a fragmented and piecemeal approach that has failed to deliver the real change we need in the health and well-being of our high streets and town centres. Well-intentioned though I am sure some of the initiatives are, the truth is that the Government’s approach is a dog’s breakfast and it has had no significant impact. The Government’s own progress report in July highlights that; it is so scant on the details of what has been improved.
	The Portas pilots have been very slow to pull down the money allocated to them and by June only 12% of the £2.3 million Portas pilot budget allocated had been spent. Mary Portas has said, and I was there at the Select Committee:
	“I’m not seeing that happening and it’s getting very frustrating. The Government’s response to my proposals has been tepid. I feel exhausted by it…I feel thoroughly and utterly deflated.”
	Sadly, listening to the Under-Secretary I share that feeling. Rather than address the concerns raised by Mary Portas, the Government have now introduced policies that look set to worsen the situation. Such policies include the changes to the planning rules announced in May and August, which strip communities of a say over their high streets. The important difference that the changes will make is that they will allow payday lenders and betting shops, which have always been able to open up in banks and building societies, to take over other shops as well. The Government are also allowing offices, shops and services such as banks and building societies to be turned into flats and houses without any proper strategy. That is the opposite of what our high streets need and it is the opposite of what people want to see.

Rory Stewart: rose—

Andy Sawford: I have very little time left.
	Labour will therefore give councils new powers, so that in areas where there is a problem councillors could put payday lenders and other problem uses into a new umbrella class. We will encourage local authorities to plan for and allow flexibility on the high street in a way that suits the community they represent, such as through permitted development rights. We will take action to promote retail diversity and, vitally, we will cut business rates. If Labour wins power in 2015, we will use the money that this Government would use to cut taxes for
	80,000 of our largest businesses to cut business rates for 1.5 million businesses across our country. That proposal has been welcomed by organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses. I believe it has the power to make a huge difference. It will save those businesses £450 a year, which will be much needed; it will be a real lifeline.
	May I end by welcoming the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) to his role? I very much hope to see him in the Lobby supporting our motion, because I understand that the Liberal Democrat conference supported it, too. It is Liberal Democrat policy, but I wonder whether it will be another example, like the mansion tax or the Robin Hood financial transaction tax, where we have given the Liberal Democrats the opportunity in this House to vote for their own policy and they have found some weasel words to get out of it and troop through the Lobby with the Tories. The action that we need for our town centres is set out in our motion, and I urge him to see sense and support it.

Stephen Williams: The hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) and I are both newbies in our roles, so I welcome him to his role. I will decline his blandishments, which have been offered to me on many occasions by an Opposition spokesman, seductive as they may be in part. That is often the way with Opposition motions, and I have spoken on many of them over the past three and a half years. Although there are some good things in what the motion says and I agree with some of it, there are obviously areas where we cannot agree.
	There have been 13 Back-Bench speeches. It is the second time in the past two years or so that the House has had the opportunity to debate high streets. I spoke in a Back-Bench debate on the high street called by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) in January 2012. On that occasion 50 Back Benchers spoke in the debate so we know that there is huge interest in the issue across the House. However, given that this was an Opposition-day motion, there are rather more Labour Members in the Chamber as we are coming up to the vote than there have been throughout the entire debate. Considering that it was their own motion, it is disappointing that more Labour MPs chose not to take part.
	It is a particular pleasure on my first outing at the Dispatch Box to be speaking about high streets. If I may be parochial for a moment, my constituency, Bristol West, has the greatest high street in England running right through the middle of it—the Gloucester road, the longest stretch of independent businesses in the country. At the west of my constituency there is Clifton village, full of independent shops and boutiques, and in the east of my constituency is Stapleton road. Rather as the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) said of her constituency, Stapleton road in my constituency is in one of the 10% most deprived census enumeration districts in England, but it is a thriving high street and I pay tribute to all my constituents there, particularly the new arrivals from Somalia in recent years, who have opened small businesses in that street.
	We do not have in that high street the problems of betting shops that the right hon. Lady mentioned. She was the first of many speakers who mentioned that problem, to which the Opposition motion refers. The general point that was made was that nothing can be done about it. To all those who made that point, I say there is something that can be done. There is something in existing planning legislation that they could use; it is called an article 4 directive. I suggest that all the hon. Members who said they feel that their local area is not doing enough to stem the tide, as they see it, of betting shops moving into their high streets should speak to their local councillors and local council officers and ask why an article 4 directive has not been issued. Many of the other considerations relating to betting shops fall under the licensing regime, not the planning system, which is primarily to do with the rationing of space.

Bill Esterson: Will the Minister tell the House whether he thinks a cut in business rates will help his high streets, and if he does, will he vote for our motion tonight?

Stephen Williams: The Government are doing much on business rates. We have delayed the revaluation until 2015. Also, as was announced in the Budget this year, we are giving every business in the country a £2,000 national insurance credit. That will be of huge value to many small businesses throughout the country, some of which will no longer be paying employers national insurance at all, and many of them will be retailers. That £2,000 may compensate significantly for the high cost of business rates, which we certainly acknowledge is a problem. Many small businesses say that uniform business rate is a problem for them.

Simon Hughes: I warmly welcome the appointment of my hon. Friend, who will do an excellent job as Minister. I put it to his colleague earlier that, on one aspect of the debate, our party decided this year that we wanted a change in the law to allow a separate use class for gambling establishments. I hope that he will not forget that policy in government, and I hope he will show how good a Minister he is by persuading his colleagues before the end of this Parliament to change the law accordingly.

Stephen Williams: My right hon. Friend is always a delight and always very helpful. I am sure that that will be a hot topic for discussion at ministerial team meetings over the next 12 months.
	On the point about business rates, councils already have discretion to give a reduction, and the Government fund that on a 50:50 basis. Many hon. Members talked about the effect of business rates on their communities and about the revaluation. The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley)—I commiserate with him on today’s result—made some points about valuation. Actually, out-of-town businesses are valued on the same basis as town and city centre businesses, and it is on the rental valuation. Although the valuation is based on 2008, in 2010 this Government reduced the percentage applied to the valuation, so the truth is that since 1990 there has been no real-terms rise in business rates.

Brian Binley: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Williams: I will give way one last time.

Brian Binley: The Minister is very kind. Does he not recognise, however, that the car parks of out-of-town developments are not rated?

Stephen Williams: As a city centre MP, I know that there is certainly concern about the disparity between charges for town and city centre parking and for out-of-town parking, which is often free. I think that ought to be kept under review.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Stephen Williams: I have now given way three times, unlike the hon. Member for Corby, so I will now continue with my speech.
	We heard from several members of the Communities and Local Government Committee—I am sure that I will be appearing before it soon—including the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk). I certainly agree with many of the good points he made. We want diversity on the high street. None of us wants to see clone towns with chain stores and too many charity shops, bars, estate agents and so on. However, he rather shot himself in the foot when he said that the big problem is the flatlining economy. We have heard a lot from Opposition Front Benchers about the flatlining economy, but it turns out not to be true, because there was no double-dip recession and the economy is growing. We know that there is much more to do, but the country is certainly on track and the economy is returning to health.
	The hon. Member for Rochdale, among many other Members, also mentioned the Grimsey review, which was intended as an alternative to the Portas review, or to complement it. I attended the launch of Bill Grimsey’s review downstairs in the Churchill Room and think that he made many interesting points. One that particularly chimed with me was the suggestion that the high street should do much more to make technology available, particularly wi-fi. I am now quite militant about asking high street businesses whether wi-fi is available. He makes a very good point.
	We also heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Southport (John Pugh) and for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), both of whom are members of the Select Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby mentioned that it was also important to have people living in town centres. During the debate it seemed that many Members thought that people living in town and city centres was something of a problem. As someone who not only is an MP for a city centre, but was the councillor for Bristol city centre 20 years ago, I think that it is marvellous that more people want to live in town and city centres. We are reversing the urban flight to the suburbs that took place over a long period. Town and city centre vitality depends on a cross-section of the population living in those communities, spending money in the shops, working in the shops and perhaps being able to walk to work. I find it quite puzzling that many hon. Members seemed to think that it was a problem that the changes we are making will enable more people to live in town and city centres.
	In the minute remaining I will mention some of the initiatives that the Government are undertaking. I think that some hon. Members were quite churlish about the Portas review. Mary Portas is a business woman who
	gave up her time for the Government. She came up with many sensible recommendations, 27 of which the Government have accepted. I went to her consultation on the Upper Committee Corridor, which was packed with MPs who wanted to support what she was doing—

Rosie Winterton: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
	Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.
	Main Question accordingly put.
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Lindsay Hoyle: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
	The House having divided:

Ayes 224, Noes 294.

Question accordingly negatived.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
	That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion relating to Civil Aviation Safety.—(John Penrose.)
	Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Civil Aviation Safety

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 12864/13, a draft Commission Regulation (EU) No. .../… of XXX amending Regulation (EU) No. 965/2012 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to air operations pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council; notes that the Government recognises the importance of managing crew fatigue to support civil aviation safety; supports the Government’s view that the measures will establish safety improvements across the European Union and maintain safety in the UK; and further supports the Government’s view that the measures respect subsidiarity principles and help to deliver a level playing field across the EU.—(John Penrose.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 272, Noes 227.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

National Health Service

That the draft National Health Service (Licence Exemptions, etc.) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 4 July, be approved.—(John Penrose.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Probation Service (Privatisation)

Nick Brown: The petitioners urge the Government, and in particular the Ministry of Justice, to think again about their proposals for the privatisation of the probation service.
	Megan Elliott, of the National Association of Probation Officers, and her colleagues have collected a petition of 2,138 signatures from the catchment area of the Northumbria Probation Trust. It is not surprising that feeling about this issue is strong in the north-east of England—the Northumbria Probation Trust received an exceptional rating in 2012-13. Indeed, the wider probation service received the British Quality Foundation gold medal for excellence in 2011.
	The petitioners firmly oppose the Government’s plan to privatise up to 70% of probation service work. They defend a publicly accountable probation service in the public sector. They oppose the Government’s plan to abolish the 35 separate probation trusts and oppose contracting out through a competitive process that excludes the probation service but includes 70% of their current work. At the heart of the petitioners’ objection is the risk to the public that the Government’s proposals so obviously pose. It offends against common sense to proceed with these untested ideas without, at the very least, piloting them first and learning the lessons of the pilot. I side with the petitioners and believe we should heed their warning.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of the UK,
	Declares that the Petitioners oppose the Government’s plan to abolish the Probation Service in its current form and to privatise up to 70% of work currently undertaken by it. The Petitioners believe that those convicted by a Criminal Court should be supervised by those employed by a publicly accountable Probation Service such as currently exists; further that the Petitioners oppose the Government’s plan to abolish the 35 public sector Probation Trusts replacing them with one Probation Service that only supervises those deemed to be of a high risk of harm to the public. It is envisaged under the current plan, 70% of probation’s work will be subject to a competitive process which excludes the Probation Service. We believe that such a plan is “high risk” in that it could place the public at a greater risk of harm.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to stop the planned changes to the Probation Service.
	And the Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	[P001225]

ANSFORD RAILWAY BRIDGE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(John Penrose.)

David Heath: I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to do something that, as a former Minister, I have been unable to do for the past three and a half years, which is to raise an issue in the House, on behalf of my constituents, in an area that was not my responsibility as a Minister.
	There is a considerable groundswell of opinion in my constituency about the closure of a railway bridge in Ansford, very close to Castle Cary railway station, closing the A371, which runs through my constituency. The reasons for the disquiet are the length of the operation that Network Rail is effecting, the consequences for the local economy, the inconvenience to local people and the fact that those could have been mitigated with a bit more care on the part of the railway company. Having said that, I think we all understand the reasons for the bridge closure. It is an essential maintenance requirement; it is not in anyone’s interest that we have bridges over railways that fall apart and cause trouble. We all realise that occasionally significant works have to be done.
	The closure of the A371 was originally mooted as a 24-week closure beginning in September 2012. I intervened, mainly because I felt that the notice given to local businesses and people was entirely inadequate, that no consultation had taken place—to anybody’s knowledge—and that it was simply inappropriate, in effect, to close down the town of Castle Cary over the Christmas period, with all the consequences that that would have had. To give credit to Network Rail, however, after those complaints, it recognised that there was a problem. It attended a meeting held in the area and listened to local people’s concerns, and it went away, determined to postpone the work and undertook to see how the works could be done in the shortest time and with the least effect on the local area. It then came back with a project to start in July this year, which it did, and to end, we hope, in mid-November—a 19-week period.
	Let me be clear, however: 19 weeks is a very long time for a major road to be closed. It would cause enough disruption in a metropolitan area, but of course there would be alternatives. In rural Somerset, there are no easy alternatives, and the diversions are considerable. For light cars, it is 17 miles; for heavy goods vehicles, it is 32 miles, which represents a significant extra cost for companies whose main business is either freight or the delivery of products elsewhere in the country. South Somerset district council has estimated the consequences for the eight largest companies in the immediate vicinity of the road closure. Its reasonable estimate is that the additional cost for those companies alone is in excess of £1 million and that it will cost smaller businesses at least another £1 million. All that is without reference to the inconvenience and disruption to individuals. It might mean an extra 12 miles on the way to school or to work in the morning or added inconvenience for those rushing to catch a train at Castle Cary, one of the few viable train stations in my constituency providing a service to London. It is now difficult to get to it from one direction at least, which causes great difficulty.
	If we were talking about a council—or, I would like to think, a Department—every effort would be made, as far as possible, to fit things in with local needs. Public accountability suggests that the organisation involved would be desperately trying to reduce the economic and social effects to a minimum, but Network Rail is of course not publicly accountable in that way, other than through the Department for Transport. Indeed, I am afraid to say that there appears to be no evidence that it believes it has any wider responsibility, other than to minimise its costs and do whatever is most convenient to itself. That is why local people are so upset.
	I am glad to see the Minister here this evening, but I know that he cannot provide me with an enormous amount of comfort, nor do I expect him to—I know that because at the start of this work I was in correspondence with the then rail Minister. I know, too, that the Secretary of State for Transport has had discussions on this very subject with Mr Richard Fry of Frampton’s—a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) and a representative of a freight company that is one of those most affected—yet all to no avail. In fact, if the Minister has been given the same brief as his predecessors—who is to know whether his civil servants have rewritten it?—he might employ the following sentences: “Network Rail is a private sector company limited by guarantee. The scope and duration of its engineering works are operational matters for the company in which Ministers have no powers to intervene.” If he finds that in his notes, I hope he will omit it and take it as read, because I know that that is the case. However, it in no way alters my contention that proper pressure should be applied on public bodies such as Network Rail.
	My reason for securing this debate is to say that that answer and its consequences are simply not good enough, and things could be arranged better. Let me cover some of the things that might have been considered. One of the clear views expressed by my constituents is that, given such an enormously disruptive road closure, then ’twere best it were done as quickly as possible—that the minimum amount of time should be taken. That would involve working rather more than the minimum periods available, in order to get the job done. We discussed with Network Rail the possibility of night working—indeed, conditions could not have been better for evening or night work over the last few months—but that has not been forthcoming. We could have had weekend working, but no work has been done at weekends. We could also have had arrangements to provide for temporary daytime access or, if that were not possible, night-time access when no work was being done, but that was inconvenient and was not done either.
	I know that with every major civil construction project people will say, “Nobody ever seems to be working on it.” Sometimes work is done that people are not aware of and sometimes a refractory period is necessary while concrete sets, for example. I understand that, but I assure the Minister that no one in the local area discerns any sense of urgency with this work. There is no sense that people are trying to get it done in the minimum amount of time. Indeed, they are simply dawdling their way through the project, with all the effects that that has.

Tessa Munt: I agree with my hon. Friend wholeheartedly. I have written to the Minister about this matter, because a huge number of my constituents
	have been inconvenienced. I have also written to the company concerned, but at no point has it agreed to do anything like consider double working, triple-shift working or anything else that might avail the local community or Frampton’s, which my hon. Friend has already mentioned, and the other transport companies. Does he agree that that is the least that the company could have considered?

David Heath: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I know that her constituents are feeling exactly the same pressures as mine are. This is not just a problem of unwillingness to think about the situation. It seems impossible for anyone—the Minister or anyone else—to apply pressure on Network Rail to make it acknowledge its responsibility to the local community. Closing a road has consequences, and it must be done for the minimum amount of time.
	Network Rail could also have looked at alternative ways of undertaking the project. Such alternatives were offered, but they were rejected. It was suggested, for example, that temporary alternative bridge work might be put in place, but Network Rail was not prepared to consider that on the ground of cost. Instead of repairing the bridge, it might have considered replacing it with a prefabricated alternative, which would have avoided the long delays altogether. Again, that was not considered. I understand that the Army offered to build a Bailey bridge as a temporary replacement. It offered to do it for free, as it would have found it a useful exercise; Network Rail would not have had to pay for anything except the pier supports. Again, the offer was rejected.
	There are other things that Network Rail could have done to make life easier for local people. I mentioned that people are having difficulty getting to the railway station from Castle Cary, two miles away, simply because the link between the two is closed. However, they could have reached it if car parking had been provided on the right side of the closure, because people could have decamped by footpath from there to the station. That car parking was offered. Indeed, I understand that Michael Eavis, who runs the Glastonbury festival, offered to provide free use of the metal surfacing that he uses in his festival car park, to create hard standing in a field on the right side of the road closure, which would have helped local people. Again, that offer was not entertained by Network Rail. Apparently it is not even interested in getting people to use the railway if it is going to cost money.
	Even the things that Network Rail did undertake to do have not been done satisfactorily. It said that it would provide full signage to show that the affected businesses were open, but the signage was still not in place long after the closure had been effected, and the businesses lost money. The signage that was eventually put up misled people. The situation on the ground is quite complicated, and I do not expect the Minister to understand it, as he is not a Somerset man. However, there is a road called the B3153, which goes from Castle Cary across a railway bridge that everyone assumes is closed, even though it is not, to places in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells. The signs simply say that the railway bridge is closed, and everyone assumes that they refer to that railway bridge. Businesses have lost revenue as a result. The advertisements that were supposed to be in all the local newspapers and on
	local radio never quite transpired in the way that was suggested. Whenever anyone mentions compensation, people get very tight-lipped indeed. There is no suggestion that anyone will be compensated for these problems.
	As I have said, the consequence of all this is that the estimated cost to the major employers in the area is about £1 million. In our terms, these are big local employers. They supply dairy products, veterinary supplies and pet foods. The cost to the largest one alone will be £350,000, because of extra fuel burn, the need for dual-crewing in order to meet the working time directive, and extra wages costs. These costs all add up. There will also be extra costs for the council as a result of damage to the highway network because, sadly, heavy goods vehicles are using inappropriate roads.
	I do not believe that any of this was necessary. Network Rail could have done a better job for local people. I say that because an example from elsewhere has been brought to my attention. Work was recently done by Network Rail in Lewisham. I have no doubt that it involved important track work, and it cost £9.5 million. That includes £2.5 million to ensure the safety and protection of a wildlife area. I think it is good—no one should get me wrong on this—that money is being spent to protect such an area, but I would have liked that money to be invested not just because of the Network Rail’s fear that wildlife protection groups would be on its back; I would have liked it to consider Somerset people as well—people who are losing their jobs and their livelihoods in local businesses as a result of what Network Rail proposed. I think £2.5 million would have paid for all that shopping list of mitigating factors.
	This provides an object lesson in how not to take into account the needs of the local economy and the interests of local residents. I ask the Minister to consider this issue. If it were not a road that was closed, but a railway line, do we honestly believe that Network Rail would not have worked absolutely round the clock to get the line opened again—because its revenue would be affected? Do we not believe that Network Rail would have used every possible measure to maintain some traffic along the line, whether it be in one direction or the other, in a way that has not happened in the case of this road? In those circumstances, it would not have been 19 weeks; it would certainly not have been a five-day-a-week, 9-to-5 job.
	Network Rail has done itself no favours whatever in community relations. I have to say that this is not the fault of the local community relations managers, who have been doing their level best to be as helpful as they can be within the constraints set by head office. The overall policy of Network Rail here, however, shows absolutely no regard for local interests. That is what concerns me—the attitude displayed by Network Rail. If anyone wants an indication of that, let me say that I wrote to the chief executive on 5 September, asking about the progress made on the scheme, asking when it could be expected to finish and asking when we could expect to see some of the accelerated work that had been promised. I received an acknowledgement on 11 September; I am still waiting for a substantive reply. I think that tells us everything you need to know, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me that Network Rail is not completely oblivious—or will be made not to be completely oblivious—of the interests of the local communities that, as a public company, it is supposed to serve.

Stephen Hammond: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath)on securing tonight’s Adjournment debate. The closure of the A371 is clearly a subject of great importance to him—and to his hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt)—and he spoke eloquently about it. I noted in his opening remarks that he thought Network Rail had been rather slow in its response, so I hope to be a bit faster this evening. I noted, too, that he was not sure whether I could say much from the Dispatch Box tonight to indicate that actions were on the way. I have, however, picked up some things from his speech on which I hope to able to give him some reassurance.
	My hon. Friend referred to his main concerns on behalf of his constituents and to those of the leader of South Somerset district council seen in an exchange of correspondence earlier this year with the then rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome knows, that Minister and my officials have already raised concerns with Network Rail, particularly about the possibilities of single-lane operation or putting a temporary bridge in place. I hope to address a couple of those points tonight, and I shall certainly take note of my hon. Friend’s last remark—that he has failed to receive a reply from the chief executive of Network Rail since 5 September. By any standard, that is not acceptable behaviour, and I shall certainly ensure that my officials speak to Network Rail tomorrow morning to get that response for him.
	I listened to my hon. Friend set out the issues. As he rightly says, I am not a Somerset man, so my understanding of them is clearly not as great as his. None the less, we all accept that the road is an important one for the local community. The location between Castle Cary station and the B3153 has an impact, as it falls under the responsibility of Somerset county council as the highways authority. Following routine inspections by Network Rail, there was widespread agreement that major repair and strengthening to the bridge was necessary; otherwise, the modern traffic loads that use the route would be unable to do so, and there would be no certainty of the continuing safety on the railway.
	It is disappointing, however, that the repair and strengthening work for the overbridge, as my hon. Friend said, started on 8 July and is expected to run until the end of November. That is partly to do with the extra works that Network Rail is putting in place. I am not sure that the full benefit of those extra works has necessarily been explained, perhaps because they will benefit the company in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells. It is normal practice for Network Rail to prepare bridges of local authority roads to the statutory requirement to be able to carry 24 tonnes. That is covered by a national programme of assessment known as Bridgeguard 3. To implement that, there is a national cost sharing agreement with local authorities. There is no obligation on Network Rail to bring the strength of its bridges carrying roads up to the standard to carry modern freight. It is generally accepted that the load-bearing capacity to accommodate modern highway standards is 40 tonnes. Certainly, one reason for the delay and elongated works, which I accept has caused the suffering experienced by my hon.
	Friend’s constituents, is the increase in the strength of the bridge to 40 tonnes, which will allow greater facilitation of the local economy. That is taking longer than expected.
	My hon. Friend also asked why it was not possible to consider doing the construction work in two halves. Had that been possible, it would have been done, but had that happened, the scaffolding required to access the outside of the bridge girders would have had to be mounted on the bridge deck, which would have made it impossible for the railway service underneath to continue. That is why the work could not be undertaken in two halves.

Tessa Munt: Surely if the flipping Army can build something in 24 hours, something could be created. If motorway bridges can be prefabricated, formed off site and rolled into place, and it takes 12 hours, why cannot something have been done in this case?

Stephen Hammond: I am coming to the construction of a temporary bailey bridge. I know my hon. Friend listened carefully to my remarks about strengthening the bridge to the level of 40 tonnes, and that is one reason for the delay. None the less, I am not trying to excuse the fact that the work will take 19 weeks. I understand the impact on local constituents, and my hon. Friends can be assured that this will be one of the issues that I will raise when I next meet Network Rail in my new role, as I expect to do in the near future.
	Some issues were raised about why certain things may or may not have been possible. Consideration was given to whether a temporary bailey bridge could be installed while the main bridge was closed. I understand that the cost of the installation of the bailey bridge might have been greater than the cost of the refurbishment project itself. I must confess that what my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome said about the offer to build it at no cost was news to me.

David Heath: I hope that I did not mislead the Minister. I understand that the Army was prepared to build the bridge at no cost, but I accept that the building of the piering would have imposed a considerable cost on Network Rail. What I simply do not understand is why, given the disruption that is being caused, Network Rail is not working round the clock to complete the work as quickly as possible.

Stephen Hammond: I shall deal with that point in a moment. However, I am glad that there is agreement between us that the possibility of a bailey bridge was considered, although it was ruled out on the basis that it was not cost-effective.
	I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I skip the history of Network Rail, and simply tell him that it is a private company and there is no ministerial responsibility for its operation. Ministers are, however, able to speak to representatives of the company, and, as I have said, I will speak to them about his letter.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acknowledging the work being done through local consultation, and the fact that Network Rail listened to consultation at a time when some of the proposals were even less acceptable than they are now. He also acknowledged that a considerable amount of work was being done, and done much more quickly than before, in respect of the new road traffic orders.
	I know that this will be of little comfort to my hon. Friend and his constituents, but I can tell him that following the pressure exerted on Network Rail by him and others, and by the Department, the repairs—which began on 8 July—have been speeded up, and the timetable has been reduced from 24 weeks to 19. I know that there have been problems relating to communication with residents during the consultation, but, as he also acknowledged, some changes have been made as a result of the consultation.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend again on securing the debate. He has described very clearly the concern and disruption that the works have caused to his constituents. Everyone accepts that if the works were not carried out,
	the structure would deteriorate. As for the operational details, I will write to him about them if he will allow me to do so, because I am not sure of the position. There may well be temporary problems because of the position of the rail track.
	I think it important to note that, notwithstanding the frustration that has been caused, at the end of those 19 weeks this large maintenance project will have enabled the bridge to meet modern highway standards to an extent that was not possible before. I hope that my successors and those of the hon. Gentleman will not have to discuss the bridge for another 50 years.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.